4 ms·

No? First of all, I'm saying that allowing sideloading is actually hostile to the majority of users, and I'm also saying this threatened the very survival of Mo

by dao- 8y ago

No? First of all, I'm saying that allowing sideloading is actually hostile to the majority of users, and I'm also saying this threatened the very survival of Mozilla, so this needs to be part of the consideration.

throwaway2048 8y ago
It absolutely can, for example: "It's not gonna happen. Firefox would be dead by now if it still allowed users to customize their webbrowser and make Firefox unusable (as in slow, unstable, and btw insecure), because users wouldn't keep up with that for too long. They'd just use another browser. This may be okay with you for now because you know how to protect yourself against misconfiguration, but in the long run Mozilla needs market share to stay relevant and be able to compete with the richest companies on this planet." Substitute in any positive feature that puts the user in control of their web browsing experience, power over something means the power to break it too, using that as a reason to remove functionality is stupid. Doubly so when you pile on the "omg if they do this mozilla is doomed" hysterics.
- dao- 8y ago
  Sure, you can always claim that some random lockdown is vital. The thing is, not every assertion is the same. Yours could be nonsense while mine could still be true.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    If you claim something like "John is a carpenter because John is a human and carpenters are humans" and someone points out that your logic doesn't follow (by applying it to some other known non-carpenter human), you can then claim that this doens't prove that John isn't a carpenter, but the point is that the original claim utterly fails to prove that he is.
    - dao- 8y ago
      Where did I assert something similar to your example? It seems like a false analogy. The criticism wasn't even that my logic was flawed but that the same argument could somehow be made to justify any user-hostile action. If the problem in your point of view is that I didn't /prove/ how big of a problem sideloading was then yes, I didn't even attempt to do that. There's a separate subthread on that question.
      - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        > Where did I assert something similar to your example? It seems like a false analogy. The criticism wasn't even that my logic was flawed but that the same argument could somehow be made to justify any user-hostile action. That's why your logic is flawed. If a construct can be used to "prove" various known-false statements then it has no value in proving anything. > If the problem in your point of view is that I didn't /prove/ how big of a problem sideloading was then yes, I didn't even attempt to do that. There's a separate subthread on that question. There is no proof of it there either. The most popular platforms (Android on mobile and Windows on desktop) allow the user to load their own applications, showing not only that it can't be a major cause of failure in the market but that it seems to be a characteristic of the player with the most share.
        dao- 8y ago
        > If a construct can be used to "prove" various known-false statements then it has no value in proving anything. Yes, if... But it can't. That criticism of my statement didn't make sense. > There is no proof of it there either. The most popular platforms [...] I meant this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18583257 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18583257
        AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        > Yes, if... But it can't. That criticism of my statement didn't make sense. It applies directly. Anything that gives the user a choice can make the user experience worse for a user who makes the wrong one. But it also makes it better for a user who makes the right one in a way different from what the developer would have had to use as a default -- because sometimes something is right for 70% of the users, so it should be the default, but the other 30% are better off with something else. Taking away the choice makes the 30% worse off to benefit the 10% of the 70% that would have chosen incorrectly for themselves. That is not a relative advantage. > I meant this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18583257 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18583257 I'll reply there, but note that you haven't addressed my point -- other platforms survive and indeed have the largest share without prohibiting users from installing software, even when competing directly against others that do.
pessimizer 8y ago
> I'm also saying this threatened the very survival of Mozilla You are saying it, but not making any argument or offering any evidence for what you're saying.
- dao- 8y ago
  We have telemetry data on performance, user retention, installed addons and how these things correlate.
  - throwaway2048 8y ago
    Dredging telemetry data has a nasty effect of letting you find precisely what you are looking for. There is no way to prove from passive monitoring of telemetry that rouge addons were causing people to abandon Firefox, nor that this measure stops people from abandoning Firefox (Or even stops rouge addons, after all its trivial to recompile firefox and replace a binary, if this becomes a problem is firefox going closed source next, for the users of course). But if you can show two numbers that seem to have a correlation (Like Pirates and Global Warming), you can advance any agenda you care to. Not to mention this "telemetry" process is entirely opaque, and used to justify decisions like this in a very Ex Cathedra sorta way, where you either accept the conclusions they have made from data you can't see, or be treated like your opinion is irrelevant. Its a very hostile way to run a supposedly "Open Source" project.
    - ubernostrum 8y ago
      Its a very hostile way to run a supposedly "Open Source" project. It's under a GPL-compatible license. Fork it and do what you like. This is a pretty FUD-y way to FUD your FUD.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > We have telemetry data on performance, user retention, installed addons and how these things correlate. Then why is that not itself an obvious solution? Use that data to provide a default-on blacklist of known-malicious addons. Then you have a blacklist rather than a whitelist, so it can justifiably be more difficult for the user to override it and the user has no motivation to do so for a malicious addon they didn't intentionally install to begin with. It also gives you the opportunity to allow the user to specify a blacklist provider, so that if the original vendor ever gets compromised because they're forced to operate in an oppressive jurisdiction, they can farm out the low-resource task of hosting the blacklist to someone who isn't compromised, and the user (or the distribution packaging the browser) can make that determination for themselves.
apostacy 8y ago
I'm sorry to be rude, but I honestly believe that the only thing that will save Mozilla is for people like you to take your terrible ideas elsewhere. You must see that your ideas are not working. Have you been able to attract new users, or even prevent existing users from leaving? No? So then how can you be so convinced that you are right? Firefox is software, not an experience. Winning over people that don't care is not an accomplishment, even if you could do it. Trying to be better than Google at nannying your lower functioning users from hurting themselves is futile, and punishes everyone else. You're feverishly stripping away everything that made Firefox superior. Driving away developers who have made unique extensions that cannot be replicated elsewhere. And for what? What is your end game? Have you seen the Chrome store? It's awful! The majority of extensions are very low quality and often misleading. And they are unresponsive and have to employ strange hacks to do things that Firefox extensions did very simply (like taking a screenshot, or interacting with other extensions). And what is your ideal outcome? To have Firefox be considered a good browser by Google's standards? How about what the users standards? You are trying to slowly turn emacs into an cheaper Microsoft Word. And patting yourself on the backs for doing it.

by dao- 8y ago

throwaway2048 8y ago

It absolutely can, for example: "It's not gonna happen. Firefox would be dead by now if it still allowed users to customize their webbrowser and make Firefox unusable (as in slow, unstable, and btw insecure), because users wouldn't keep up with that for too long. They'd just use another browser. This may be okay with you for now because you know how to protect yourself against misconfiguration, but in the long run Mozilla needs market share to stay relevant and be able to compete with the richest companies on this planet." Substitute in any positive feature that puts the user in control of their web browsing experience, power over something means the power to break it too, using that as a reason to remove functionality is stupid. Doubly so when you pile on the "omg if they do this mozilla is doomed" hysterics.

dao- 8y ago
Sure, you can always claim that some random lockdown is vital. The thing is, not every assertion is the same. Yours could be nonsense while mine could still be true.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  If you claim something like "John is a carpenter because John is a human and carpenters are humans" and someone points out that your logic doesn't follow (by applying it to some other known non-carpenter human), you can then claim that this doens't prove that John isn't a carpenter, but the point is that the original claim utterly fails to prove that he is.
  - dao- 8y ago
    Where did I assert something similar to your example? It seems like a false analogy. The criticism wasn't even that my logic was flawed but that the same argument could somehow be made to justify any user-hostile action. If the problem in your point of view is that I didn't /prove/ how big of a problem sideloading was then yes, I didn't even attempt to do that. There's a separate subthread on that question.
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      > Where did I assert something similar to your example? It seems like a false analogy. The criticism wasn't even that my logic was flawed but that the same argument could somehow be made to justify any user-hostile action. That's why your logic is flawed. If a construct can be used to "prove" various known-false statements then it has no value in proving anything. > If the problem in your point of view is that I didn't /prove/ how big of a problem sideloading was then yes, I didn't even attempt to do that. There's a separate subthread on that question. There is no proof of it there either. The most popular platforms (Android on mobile and Windows on desktop) allow the user to load their own applications, showing not only that it can't be a major cause of failure in the market but that it seems to be a characteristic of the player with the most share.
      - dao- 8y ago
        > If a construct can be used to "prove" various known-false statements then it has no value in proving anything. Yes, if... But it can't. That criticism of my statement didn't make sense. > There is no proof of it there either. The most popular platforms [...] I meant this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18583257 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18583257
        AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        > Yes, if... But it can't. That criticism of my statement didn't make sense. It applies directly. Anything that gives the user a choice can make the user experience worse for a user who makes the wrong one. But it also makes it better for a user who makes the right one in a way different from what the developer would have had to use as a default -- because sometimes something is right for 70% of the users, so it should be the default, but the other 30% are better off with something else. Taking away the choice makes the 30% worse off to benefit the 10% of the 70% that would have chosen incorrectly for themselves. That is not a relative advantage. > I meant this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18583257 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18583257 I'll reply there, but note that you haven't addressed my point -- other platforms survive and indeed have the largest share without prohibiting users from installing software, even when competing directly against others that do.

pessimizer 8y ago

> I'm also saying this threatened the very survival of Mozilla You are saying it, but not making any argument or offering any evidence for what you're saying.

dao- 8y ago
We have telemetry data on performance, user retention, installed addons and how these things correlate.
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  Dredging telemetry data has a nasty effect of letting you find precisely what you are looking for. There is no way to prove from passive monitoring of telemetry that rouge addons were causing people to abandon Firefox, nor that this measure stops people from abandoning Firefox (Or even stops rouge addons, after all its trivial to recompile firefox and replace a binary, if this becomes a problem is firefox going closed source next, for the users of course). But if you can show two numbers that seem to have a correlation (Like Pirates and Global Warming), you can advance any agenda you care to. Not to mention this "telemetry" process is entirely opaque, and used to justify decisions like this in a very Ex Cathedra sorta way, where you either accept the conclusions they have made from data you can't see, or be treated like your opinion is irrelevant. Its a very hostile way to run a supposedly "Open Source" project.
  - ubernostrum 8y ago
    Its a very hostile way to run a supposedly "Open Source" project. It's under a GPL-compatible license. Fork it and do what you like. This is a pretty FUD-y way to FUD your FUD.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > We have telemetry data on performance, user retention, installed addons and how these things correlate. Then why is that not itself an obvious solution? Use that data to provide a default-on blacklist of known-malicious addons. Then you have a blacklist rather than a whitelist, so it can justifiably be more difficult for the user to override it and the user has no motivation to do so for a malicious addon they didn't intentionally install to begin with. It also gives you the opportunity to allow the user to specify a blacklist provider, so that if the original vendor ever gets compromised because they're forced to operate in an oppressive jurisdiction, they can farm out the low-resource task of hosting the blacklist to someone who isn't compromised, and the user (or the distribution packaging the browser) can make that determination for themselves.

apostacy 8y ago

I'm sorry to be rude, but I honestly believe that the only thing that will save Mozilla is for people like you to take your terrible ideas elsewhere. You must see that your ideas are not working. Have you been able to attract new users, or even prevent existing users from leaving? No? So then how can you be so convinced that you are right? Firefox is software, not an experience. Winning over people that don't care is not an accomplishment, even if you could do it. Trying to be better than Google at nannying your lower functioning users from hurting themselves is futile, and punishes everyone else. You're feverishly stripping away everything that made Firefox superior. Driving away developers who have made unique extensions that cannot be replicated elsewhere. And for what? What is your end game? Have you seen the Chrome store? It's awful! The majority of extensions are very low quality and often misleading. And they are unresponsive and have to employ strange hacks to do things that Firefox extensions did very simply (like taking a screenshot, or interacting with other extensions). And what is your ideal outcome? To have Firefox be considered a good browser by Google's standards? How about what the users standards? You are trying to slowly turn emacs into an cheaper Microsoft Word. And patting yourself on the backs for doing it.