4 ms·

Ubuntu 18.04, stock Firefox installed with the desktop, version 64.0.1, has in your face "Recommended by Pocket" items. One encourages me to use DuckDuckGo, bu

by dfrage 8y ago

Ubuntu 18.04, stock Firefox installed with the desktop, version 64.0.1, has in your face "Recommended by Pocket" items. One encourages me to use DuckDuckGo, but....

Vinnl 8y ago
Pocket is owned by Mozilla. But you're right, it does include support for Google search, by default, which is a third party. Not that that'd leak your financial details.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  > Pocket is owned by Mozilla. Does this really matter from the user perspective? It's still bullshit.
  - Vinnl 8y ago
    Well, it means there's no third party to trust.
  - ionised 8y ago
    Yes it matters that the third party you are talking about is not actually a third party at all.
- dfrage 8y ago
  According to Wikipedia, it's run as an "independent subsidiary". Echoing AnIdiotOnTheNet, it's in your face bullshit that clearly tells us about Mozilla's mindset today. The Firefox security story has sailed compared to Chrome's, Pocket was independent but bundled in from June 2015 to February 2017, the Mr. Robot stunt, and Cliqz. Through the lens of corporate governance, three strikes and you're out till a long period passes with good governance. Support for X search doesn't matter in the start up a browser with a single tab to do a financial transaction and then close the browser, which is how I've been using a single installation of Firefox, and will now be using Chrome. That scenario doesn't demand a good session manager, something that Firefox's transition to Quantum has ruined as I say in another comment in this topic.
  - Vinnl 8y ago
    > According to Wikipedia, it's run as an "independent subsidiary". It still means its goals aligns with Mozilla's, so you have to trust them as much as you have Mozilla. (Though of course, it should have been open sourced by now.) But really, if three strikes and you're out is your policy, you really shouldn't use Chrome - it has an order of magnitude more strikes, and they are far worse, at that. But to each their own.
    - dfrage 8y ago
      You're confounding security with privacy strikes. How many 3rd party vulnerability security strikes does Google have? And I distrust Pocket at least as much as I distrust Mozilla.
      - Vinnl 8y ago
        > You're confounding security with privacy strikes. How many 3rd party vulnerability security strikes does Google have? Well, you were referring to Cliqz, Pocket and Mr. Robot, which where trust issues, not security issues. Google has at least as many of those. > I distrust Pocket at least as much as I distrust Mozilla. That makes sense, because they're the same. You should distrust Google even more.
        dfrage 8y ago
        It should be obvious I disagree in scoring Cliqz, Pocket and Mr. Robot as security issues. Of course, many if not most security issues are in the subset of privacy issues as well, but surely you see the difference between not wanting others to know what web pages you've visited and not wanting your bank account emptied by a criminal? And when it comes to security, not hazarding my bank accounts and credit cards beyond what's unavoidable in doing business on the net, Google is massively more trustworthy than Mozilla. If for no other reason than Mozilla having entered its corporate endgame. Firefox is not fit for purpose for any of my use cases, although I've still have a copy of Waterfox that I can move to my new Linux installation with a abandoned but adequate session manager for one use case. Maybe Mozilla will fix those two dozen plus bugs and feature requirements for a good session manager before no one cares anymore and I'll continue using that line of browsers if/when Waterfox becomes unsustainable. There is absolutely nothing you can say that will make me use a program that doesn't work for me, and Firefox does not work for me except for the most casual of browsing.

by dfrage 8y ago

Ubuntu 18.04, stock Firefox installed with the desktop, version 64.0.1, has in your face "Recommended by Pocket" items. One encourages me to use DuckDuckGo, but....

Vinnl 8y ago

Pocket is owned by Mozilla. But you're right, it does include support for Google search, by default, which is a third party. Not that that'd leak your financial details.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
> Pocket is owned by Mozilla. Does this really matter from the user perspective? It's still bullshit.
- Vinnl 8y ago
  Well, it means there's no third party to trust.
- ionised 8y ago
  Yes it matters that the third party you are talking about is not actually a third party at all.
dfrage 8y ago
According to Wikipedia, it's run as an "independent subsidiary". Echoing AnIdiotOnTheNet, it's in your face bullshit that clearly tells us about Mozilla's mindset today. The Firefox security story has sailed compared to Chrome's, Pocket was independent but bundled in from June 2015 to February 2017, the Mr. Robot stunt, and Cliqz. Through the lens of corporate governance, three strikes and you're out till a long period passes with good governance. Support for X search doesn't matter in the start up a browser with a single tab to do a financial transaction and then close the browser, which is how I've been using a single installation of Firefox, and will now be using Chrome. That scenario doesn't demand a good session manager, something that Firefox's transition to Quantum has ruined as I say in another comment in this topic.
- Vinnl 8y ago
  > According to Wikipedia, it's run as an "independent subsidiary". It still means its goals aligns with Mozilla's, so you have to trust them as much as you have Mozilla. (Though of course, it should have been open sourced by now.) But really, if three strikes and you're out is your policy, you really shouldn't use Chrome - it has an order of magnitude more strikes, and they are far worse, at that. But to each their own.
  - dfrage 8y ago
    You're confounding security with privacy strikes. How many 3rd party vulnerability security strikes does Google have? And I distrust Pocket at least as much as I distrust Mozilla.
    - Vinnl 8y ago
      > You're confounding security with privacy strikes. How many 3rd party vulnerability security strikes does Google have? Well, you were referring to Cliqz, Pocket and Mr. Robot, which where trust issues, not security issues. Google has at least as many of those. > I distrust Pocket at least as much as I distrust Mozilla. That makes sense, because they're the same. You should distrust Google even more.
      - dfrage 8y ago
        It should be obvious I disagree in scoring Cliqz, Pocket and Mr. Robot as security issues. Of course, many if not most security issues are in the subset of privacy issues as well, but surely you see the difference between not wanting others to know what web pages you've visited and not wanting your bank account emptied by a criminal? And when it comes to security, not hazarding my bank accounts and credit cards beyond what's unavoidable in doing business on the net, Google is massively more trustworthy than Mozilla. If for no other reason than Mozilla having entered its corporate endgame. Firefox is not fit for purpose for any of my use cases, although I've still have a copy of Waterfox that I can move to my new Linux installation with a abandoned but adequate session manager for one use case. Maybe Mozilla will fix those two dozen plus bugs and feature requirements for a good session manager before no one cares anymore and I'll continue using that line of browsers if/when Waterfox becomes unsustainable. There is absolutely nothing you can say that will make me use a program that doesn't work for me, and Firefox does not work for me except for the most casual of browsing.