5 ms·

The idea might be good. The execution is harmful to users, and they refuse to roll it back. That's all that matters. Mozilla has shown this pattern consistently

by Endy 8y ago

The idea might be good. The execution is harmful to users, and they refuse to roll it back. That's all that matters. Mozilla has shown this pattern consistently - they have an idea they think will be good for people, and when it ends up being hurtful and damaging not only the core product but the userbase - driving more people to alternate browsers - they steadfastly refuse to see what's going on around them. Frankly, those of us who went to Pale Moon may as well have been the last rats off a sinking ship.

__david__ 8y ago
> The idea might be good. The execution is harmful to users, and they refuse to roll it back. Howso? I've been using FF forever and I didn't notice this change…
- Endy 8y ago
  I'm glad that all of the addons you use are the ones they've approved of and which haven't been made incompatible by any of the major breaking changes they've introduced in the last few years.
  - rrix2 8y ago
    Those seem like two entirely unrelated issues
    - rhizome 8y ago
      I don't know the whole story, but I'm inferring that the signing change affected the ability for people to sideload plugins.
      - rrix2 8y ago
        That had nothing to do with the move to WebExtensions and the associated compatibility issues though...
        Endy 8y ago
        I feel that Mozilla's misdirection is one very large issue encompassing many problems.
- kibwen 8y ago
  The fact that this benign comment is so downvoted says a lot about the sort of people who are brigading this thread.
kalenx 8y ago
Firefox is still a terrific browser. Compared to forks like PaleMoon I would even say that it is now much better given the continuous improvements we've seen with quantum and others. I definitely do not agree with Mozilla on everything, but stating that they are harming their userbase based on your single point of view is moot, to say the least. And Firefox, a sinking ship with not even rats on board anymore? Come on now.
oconnor663 8y ago
> The execution is harmful to users Do you have a source for that? Moz has a ton of data about how harmful to users it was to have an ecosystem full of trashy spam extensions. The leap from "this solution has some downsides" to "this solution's downsides outweigh its upsides" is skipping the most important part of the question.
- JadeNB 8y ago
  > Moz has a ton of data about how harmful to users it was to have an ecosystem full of trashy spam extensions. I wish that this data were available somewhere—not this specific data, but in general. Mozilla's response to community push-back is always "trust us, the data show that this is what's best". If you trust them already, then that might be good enough; but, when this is always their first, and often their only, response to push-back, it's hard to distinguish it from the empty response of someone with no data who wants to avoid questions.
  - oconnor663 8y ago
    That's fair, but I want to highlight the world of difference between "dubious behavior" and "it would be nice if we had your data to check your conclusions." I'm not with Mozilla, but when I've been in a similar position, it's deeply frustrating to read stuff like this on the internet. (So the healthy thing is really to just stop reading it, which is a shame.)
    - Endy 8y ago
      I consider the fact that they're hiding the data and using it as a smoke-screen to do whatever the corporate side would like to do at the time or an excuse to play with whatever side project the head dev en vogue was playing with, regardless of what the userbase wants and needs to be 'dubious' from the start. So the world of difference is a non-starter in my book. Frankly, there needs to be more community input, more opportunity to speak & act against wrongheadedness. It's part of why I prefer Pale Moon. If something is asinine, I can talk to the head dev and the team. They'll either show the community their sources for making a change or put it to a vote of the active users.

by Endy 8y ago

__david__ 8y ago

> The idea might be good. The execution is harmful to users, and they refuse to roll it back. Howso? I've been using FF forever and I didn't notice this change…

Endy 8y ago
I'm glad that all of the addons you use are the ones they've approved of and which haven't been made incompatible by any of the major breaking changes they've introduced in the last few years.
- rrix2 8y ago
  Those seem like two entirely unrelated issues
  - rhizome 8y ago
    I don't know the whole story, but I'm inferring that the signing change affected the ability for people to sideload plugins.
    - rrix2 8y ago
      That had nothing to do with the move to WebExtensions and the associated compatibility issues though...
      - Endy 8y ago
        I feel that Mozilla's misdirection is one very large issue encompassing many problems.
kibwen 8y ago
The fact that this benign comment is so downvoted says a lot about the sort of people who are brigading this thread.

kalenx 8y ago

Firefox is still a terrific browser. Compared to forks like PaleMoon I would even say that it is now much better given the continuous improvements we've seen with quantum and others. I definitely do not agree with Mozilla on everything, but stating that they are harming their userbase based on your single point of view is moot, to say the least. And Firefox, a sinking ship with not even rats on board anymore? Come on now.

oconnor663 8y ago

> The execution is harmful to users Do you have a source for that? Moz has a ton of data about how harmful to users it was to have an ecosystem full of trashy spam extensions. The leap from "this solution has some downsides" to "this solution's downsides outweigh its upsides" is skipping the most important part of the question.

JadeNB 8y ago
> Moz has a ton of data about how harmful to users it was to have an ecosystem full of trashy spam extensions. I wish that this data were available somewhere—not this specific data, but in general. Mozilla's response to community push-back is always "trust us, the data show that this is what's best". If you trust them already, then that might be good enough; but, when this is always their first, and often their only, response to push-back, it's hard to distinguish it from the empty response of someone with no data who wants to avoid questions.
- oconnor663 8y ago
  That's fair, but I want to highlight the world of difference between "dubious behavior" and "it would be nice if we had your data to check your conclusions." I'm not with Mozilla, but when I've been in a similar position, it's deeply frustrating to read stuff like this on the internet. (So the healthy thing is really to just stop reading it, which is a shame.)
  - Endy 8y ago
    I consider the fact that they're hiding the data and using it as a smoke-screen to do whatever the corporate side would like to do at the time or an excuse to play with whatever side project the head dev en vogue was playing with, regardless of what the userbase wants and needs to be 'dubious' from the start. So the world of difference is a non-starter in my book. Frankly, there needs to be more community input, more opportunity to speak & act against wrongheadedness. It's part of why I prefer Pale Moon. If something is asinine, I can talk to the head dev and the team. They'll either show the community their sources for making a change or put it to a vote of the active users.