10 ms·

PreferenceRollout

147 points by mlthoughts2018 8y ago

32032141 8y ago
I didn't realise Firefox came with that sort of backdoor.
- rcthompson 8y ago
  Browser updates can also change default preferences, and change a lot of other things too. How is this a backdoor any more than auto-updating of the browser is a backdoor? The one issue I can think of is that if you turn off browser auto-updates, this should probably be turned off too.
  - user17843 8y ago
    it's one step closer and more direct control, which is why this is now being used to deliver the quick fix. The downside is that the process of updating the software becomes a bit fragmented, which is probably confusing users now.
whym 8y ago
Relevant context: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1548973#c57 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1548973#c57 > Update: We have rolled out a partial fix for this issue. We generated a new intermediate certificate with the same name/key but an updated validity window and pushed it out to users via Normandy (this should be most users). Users who have Normandy on should see their add-ons start working over the next few hours. We are continuing to work on packaging up the new certificate for users who have Normandy disabled. Further context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19823701 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19823701
- user17843 8y ago
  This partial fix via Normandy means a relevant part of the user base may still be in the dark: tech-savvy power users with many extensions who have chosen to disable normandy. (This is probably also the group which is most affected by reset extension settings)
  - tux3 8y ago
    Indeed, I had opted out of Normandy, SHIELD studies & co after the Looking Glass/Mr. Robot promotional ad fiasco. Tentatively re-enabled, it's now 2 hours since the announcement but I haven't received the preference flip study yet. A couple more hours before my fox's lastUpdateTime rolls around and my extensions get disabled, patiently waiting to see if I'll have to take manual action! Edit: Funny, my app.normandy.run_interval_seconds was set to 24h for some reason, the new default seems to be 6h. I wonder how many people are also in that situation.
    - bwat49 8y ago
      I found that setting app.normandy.first_run to true and then restarting firefox triggers the hotfix study to be installed (and the pref then automatically sets itself back to false)
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
hexo 8y ago
I don't get it. Is someone going (and I don't really care if is from mozilla or microsoft) to RECONFIGURE my browser without my consent? This is unacceptably bad idea.
- user17843 8y ago
  modern software (especially browsers) with auto-update = SAAS. What you experience is a synced remote interface, you don't own your software anymore. Granted, the secret lies in providing such an excellent and subtle service that the majority of users actually either endorse or not even notice the dependency. Which means changes should be subtle and consistent.
  - deno 8y ago
    Firefox is fully open source. Runs locally and even works offline. How is it SaaS exactly? The auto-update mechanism exists almost exclusively for the benefit of Windows users. None of the Linux distros use it.
    - Althorion 8y ago
      I guess the application changing it’s behaviour remotely, as is the case with Normandy, can be somewhat reasonably considered SaaS.
      - deno 8y ago
        Changing a default setting is SaaS?
        Althorion 8y ago
        Changing a default setting _remotely_. That is a huge field of possibilities, from not SaaS-y at all to very SaaS-y. Like for example you could make it so the script to be run when a browser encounters a pdf file is put directly in the settings. Thus changing that setting changes what the browser does—you can add, remove or change an in-browser pdf viewer that way. It’s not what Normandy currently does, but it is something it’s at least theoretically capable of. And hitting that extreme would, in my opinion, made it reasonable to start calling it SaaS.
air-gaps 8y ago
Okay, fuck Firefox. I’m done with the internet now. It has outlived it’s usefulness. Cute experiment, but persistent, pervasive user hostility demonstrates that all network connectivity is never to be trusted. Only air gaps and physical media are ever to be trusted, and not implicitly, but through verification. Thanks. Bye.
OJFord 8y ago
about:config > app.normandy.enabled > false
- mlthoughts2018 8y ago
  One thing that’s still unclear to me is whether you must disable this entry of about:config even if you go through the traditional privacy & settings drop down menus and disable the Firefox studies and usage stats options. If the _only_ way to prevent having a remote entity modify your settings unannounced (even if not for malicious purposes) is to enter about:config and change app.normandy.enable to false, that seems like a situation where the absolute best case, most charitable interpretation is to call it an incredibly deceptive dark pattern from Mozilla.
  - scolby33 8y ago
    This. After extensive reading about studies and Normandy here and elsewhere, I’m unable to find a straight answer about this. Does anyone know?
    - OJFord 8y ago
      Studies and Normandy are different things, the former often using the latter. Only 'studies' has a checkbox in about:preferences, 'Normandy' is hidden in about:config .
gouh 8y ago
It's okay to change certain settings if they don't touch privacy, for eg testing WebRender on some subset of users. But it shouldn't touch Privacy related settings. They should separate the settings into Privacy Sensitive and non Privacy sensitive and be only able to remotely change the latter ones
- new-hires 8y ago
  With a changing of the guard, the honor system can handily disappear. We saw this transpire with the burying of the JavaScript toggle. A new guy showed up, and decided that disabling JavaScript was “an advanced feature” and just too dangerous for ordinary folk. [1, 2] Of course it begins with good intentions, and promises to leave explicit privacy options alone, but new devs show up with different opinion and the old devs are gone, and suddenly privacy options are getting toggled any old time. Beyond even that, we all know that the realities of privacy are never ever cut and dry. Leaky details can expose people in peculiar ways. Fingerprinting preferences and hardware facts for forensic purposes has taught us that much. Viewport size, OS, connection speed, graphics capabilities, hardware acceleration profiles. Even stylometry, choice of words, manner of speech can give people away. In that sense, exposing any user choices might prove to compromise identity to some degree. 1. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=873709 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=873709 2. https://limi.net/checkboxes-that-kill/ https://limi.net/checkboxes-that-kill/ (seriously breathless persuasive writing about how urgent it is to hide the toggle for javascript, among other things, but make no mistake, the high value target was the javascript checkbox)
- jillesvangurp 8y ago
  Technically, this is just a lightweight way to package up minor settings changes as an alternative to pushing a normal update to do the same. Both are perfectly normal and I think today's situation totally justifies using this to fix this. They do offer a way to turn this off just like you can opt out of security updates if you insist. For the vast majority of users, automated updates are a good thing. It's kind of cool that this worked without a browser restart. My extensions just reappeared while I was watching some netflix.
- ptx 8y ago
Phenomenit 8y ago
Does the fix reach tor browser as well? Is Normandy available in tor browser?
- Phenomenit 8y ago
  Seems like tor browser is unaffected.
dschuetz 8y ago
Oh, I get it now. "Look how fast we could fix an issue with our Normandy preference rollout feature!" Best keep Normandy activated at all time, eh?
- akvadrako 8y ago
  Isn't this an abuse of the system, breaking the contract about what kind of changes will be pushed on users without their knowledge?
  - dschuetz 8y ago
    I don't know. Ironically, I had Normandy enabled (without my knowledge) and that "hotfix" they supposedly rolled out didn't reach my own client. So, what ever that feature is for - it doesn't even work. Apparently you also need to have "studies" enabled as well. It didn't work either. So, I'm waiting for official updated release. If they don't fix this soon - I'm done with Firefox and Mozilla.
    - dralley 8y ago
      The client checks periodically, they can't really "push" out that change immediately to everyone.
      - dschuetz 8y ago
        I'm willing/trying to pull the fix manually, but that doesn't work either.
rectang 8y ago
I'm one of those users who had data collection (including studies) disabled. Changing `app.normandy.run_interval_seconds` to 60 (via about:config) didn't work until I restarted Firefox AND enabled data collection including studies (via Preferences). Then all my plugins came back, and I disabled data collection once again.
Santosh83 8y ago
So I have Normandy turned on and 'install and run studies' turned on and STILL my extensions have been disabled just now, hours after Mozilla pushed the temporary fix through Normandy which I presumably haven't got, despite having it turned on. Latest Firefox on Windows 10.
- dangoor 8y ago
  I launched Firefox about 10 minutes ago and saw no change. I looked up at the window again a minute or so ago and saw that my addons were back. I'm guessing there's a timer for it to check for new studies?
- neogodless 8y ago
  I had Normandy enabled, but Studies disabled. Same version and OS. A couple minutes after I enabled studies, my add-ons came back online. Maybe try a toggle/pause/toggle?
  - Santosh83 8y ago
    Indeed. Toggling app.normandy.firstrun from its usual false forces a check upon next browser restart and the addons are back.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mcny 8y ago
I absolutely hate this because it is so tone deaf. What is the point of people like me using Firefox Nightly? Do your tests on me. Don't do stupid shit with people who choose Firefox Stable. Who came up with this idea anyway?
- fabrice_d 8y ago
  Unfortunately the population of Nightly users is too small to get relevant data in many cases.
  - mlthoughts2018 8y ago
    That would seem to be a market signal indicating people generally don’t want to be experimented on by Mozilla. How is a lack of data for Mozilla my problem? Why does it mean that can inject default preference changes?
    - dralley 8y ago
      >How is a lack of data for Mozilla my problem? Why does it mean that can inject default preference changes? It would mean they can't roll out things like hardware acceleration or Stylo or Webrender as quickly despite their numerous manifest benefits.
      - mlthoughts2018 8y ago
        I don’t understand. If users valued those things more than having the browser be a stand-alone piece of software after it is installed, then users would opt in to testing. By not opting in, users would indicated that experiment-avoidance is a feature that gives them more value than the fast rollout of those other features.
        jamescostian 8y ago
        Would you prefer stable only getting crucial security updates and never release updates to speed things up? Eventually Nightly would be completely different from stable, especially with the switch to Rust. So then Mozilla would have to maintain 2 completely different versions of FF - that's a lot more work! A better middle-ground is to let things get tested by those who opt-in to it (using Nightly and Beta versions), and slowly trickle changes down. That way none of the published versions are so different that Mozilla needs more staff to handle the different versions. And of course, stable users have far fewer issues than nightly/beta users. Certificate expirations throw a wrench in the whole system, but even if you made FF stable never update, you'd still have a problem because the cert expired.
ptx 8y ago
"Pref Rollout is a feature that allows Mozilla to change the default value of a preference for a targeted set of users, without deploying an update to Firefox." Maybe if we put this in terms of user stories... As a user, I don't want to be "targeted". As the person deploying updates, I don't want the deployment updating without an update having been deployed.
- dralley 8y ago
  An example of "targeting" in this context is "windows user with an Nvidia graphics card". For example, enabling WebRender (the new rendering engine) for those users once it is determined to be sufficiently stable.
  - ptx 8y ago
    That sounds like a new version of the software and should be deployed as a new version, with release notes noting that WebRender is now enabled for Nvidia users, so that users are prepared for the change.
    - dralley 8y ago
      The point is gather information on whether it's ready for a full scale rollout. The Firefox developers might know that it might be ready, but the sheer number of software and hardware combinations out there might reveal unknown issues. So instead of rolling it out to 100% of targeted users, you roll it out to 1% of targeted users, and measure regressions to your metrics amongst that group.
dingo_bat 8y ago
Like chromium does for Chrome, is there any project that rips out all telemetry and Mozilla shit from Firefox?
benatkin 8y ago
Firefox has done so much lately to hurt its image, that I wonder if Google has double agents working inside Mozilla to sabotage Firefox.
gilfoyle4ceo 8y ago
Dear Mozilla, Please, please, please stop the automagical updates. Is it really so hard to prompt your users if they'd like to allow a temporary fix/feature to be installed? You use webcompat to push quick fixes for specific sites (hidden) you use Normandy to push future features/fixes (hidden), when your users check their version number via the help/about option you automatically d/l and update the next version(!!??). Why is it so hard to ask if this is something that your users want to do???
- anonymousab 8y ago
  >Is it really so hard to prompt your users if they'd like to allow a temporary fix/feature to be installed? People might say no, and that would likely very much anger a PM somewhere.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
hartator 8y ago
Why not just update their SSL certificate?
- teddyfrozevelt 8y ago
  Because it's not an SSL certificate.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Tharkun 8y ago
I had never heard of this Normandy nonsense. I have certainly never willingly enabled it. Yet according to my preferences, it's enabled. And apparently it's a feature that lets Mozilla remotely mess with my preferences. What the actual fuck? When did Firefox go from being a privacy-conscious browser to being this pile of nonsense? I'm not amused.
- dralley 8y ago
  An important detail is that it only changes the default preferences. It will not change anything that you have changed yourself.
- jimrandomh 8y ago
  Most large software projects have something like this. The typical use case is rolling out a feature gradually, to limit the number of users impacted if a new feature has problems: first you include the feature in a release, but disabled by default; then you turn it on for a small percentage of users. If instrumentation from those users reports crashes, you abort; otherwise, you enable it for everyone else.
RpFLCL 8y ago
I understand that this isn't a backdoor, it's a frontdoor insofar as there is a wiki page about it. What concerns me is that Normandy isn't communicated in the UI of the browser settings, and that Firefox is allowing Mozilla to target me based on any of these: Targeting can be based on many criteria, including: Firefox version channel (release, beta, nightly) a percentage of users country Firefox locale installed add-ons profile age any preference value many keys in Telemetry Any preference value? Is this targeting being done locally or remotely? Once I've been 'targeted' what information about me is then sent to Mozilla? I'm not sure I want any of those shared, especially the last several. Yet this was enabled by default and the only way to disable Normandy is through about:config? Does disabling that also stop whatever allowed the targeting in the first place? It just seems like there was a real lack of informed consent regarding this feature and it only came to light when the team used this as a shortcut for fixing the add-on disaster.
- nyuszika7h 8y ago
  Unticking "Allow Firefox to run and install studies" under Settings > Privacy & Security should disable Normandy.
  - HNthrow22 8y ago
    I have all of the privacy options unchecked including studies but Normandy (which I've just found out about via this issue) is still enabled.
  - masterfooo 8y ago
    It seems still enabled in about:config
  - c197 8y ago
    It doesn't, Normandy is still enabled and will install studies against the user's will. This is disgusting.
stevenwliao 8y ago
I don't understand the criticisms in this thread. Why would anyone trust Mozilla's code but not their preferences configurations?
- erikpukinskis 8y ago
  Yes, technically code and preferences are both the exact same thing: code. Preferences are declarative code, but so are Webpack configs and Rails apps and UI schemas and all kinds of things.
- pdkl95 8y ago
  Trust isn't a single static Boolean value. It depends on the situation, reputation, and many other factors. Trust is continuously re-evaluated; just because someone's coding ability was trusted in the past does not imply that their current or future actions will also be trusted. However, the current problem people are criticizing is not about Mozilla's choices for default preferences. The specific changes they ship with the browser or update with Normandy are not (currently) particularly interesting. The problem is that a new way to remotely control the browser was added unannounced that bypassed existing update methods. If you want to change other people's property, you get permissio9n first. If someone doesn't want to give you permission and you change their property anyway, we usually call that something like "trespassing", "vandalism". It doesn't matter if you think it's an important change or if you don't understand (or even know) their reason for not granting permission; their computer is their property, and they don't have to justify why they want to use it in any particular way.
zzo38computer 8y ago
Changing default settings when upgrading the version of a software can be useful sometimes (especially if the new default value is a value that was not possible before), although you should be allowed to force a setting to have a specific value even if that value is the same as the old default value, and be able to require a list of changes to be mentioned so that you can individually enable and disable them before installing the new version of the software.
dschuetz 8y ago
I switched to Vivaldi today.

32032141 8y ago

I didn't realise Firefox came with that sort of backdoor.

rcthompson 8y ago
Browser updates can also change default preferences, and change a lot of other things too. How is this a backdoor any more than auto-updating of the browser is a backdoor? The one issue I can think of is that if you turn off browser auto-updates, this should probably be turned off too.
- user17843 8y ago
  it's one step closer and more direct control, which is why this is now being used to deliver the quick fix. The downside is that the process of updating the software becomes a bit fragmented, which is probably confusing users now.

whym 8y ago

Relevant context: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1548973#c57 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1548973#c57 > Update: We have rolled out a partial fix for this issue. We generated a new intermediate certificate with the same name/key but an updated validity window and pushed it out to users via Normandy (this should be most users). Users who have Normandy on should see their add-ons start working over the next few hours. We are continuing to work on packaging up the new certificate for users who have Normandy disabled. Further context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19823701 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19823701

user17843 8y ago
This partial fix via Normandy means a relevant part of the user base may still be in the dark: tech-savvy power users with many extensions who have chosen to disable normandy. (This is probably also the group which is most affected by reset extension settings)
- tux3 8y ago
  Indeed, I had opted out of Normandy, SHIELD studies & co after the Looking Glass/Mr. Robot promotional ad fiasco. Tentatively re-enabled, it's now 2 hours since the announcement but I haven't received the preference flip study yet. A couple more hours before my fox's lastUpdateTime rolls around and my extensions get disabled, patiently waiting to see if I'll have to take manual action! Edit: Funny, my app.normandy.run_interval_seconds was set to 24h for some reason, the new default seems to be 6h. I wonder how many people are also in that situation.
  - bwat49 8y ago
    I found that setting app.normandy.first_run to true and then restarting firefox triggers the hotfix study to be installed (and the pref then automatically sets itself back to false)

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

hexo 8y ago

I don't get it. Is someone going (and I don't really care if is from mozilla or microsoft) to RECONFIGURE my browser without my consent? This is unacceptably bad idea.

user17843 8y ago
modern software (especially browsers) with auto-update = SAAS. What you experience is a synced remote interface, you don't own your software anymore. Granted, the secret lies in providing such an excellent and subtle service that the majority of users actually either endorse or not even notice the dependency. Which means changes should be subtle and consistent.
- deno 8y ago
  Firefox is fully open source. Runs locally and even works offline. How is it SaaS exactly? The auto-update mechanism exists almost exclusively for the benefit of Windows users. None of the Linux distros use it.
  - Althorion 8y ago
    I guess the application changing it’s behaviour remotely, as is the case with Normandy, can be somewhat reasonably considered SaaS.
    - deno 8y ago
      Changing a default setting is SaaS?
      - Althorion 8y ago
        Changing a default setting _remotely_. That is a huge field of possibilities, from not SaaS-y at all to very SaaS-y. Like for example you could make it so the script to be run when a browser encounters a pdf file is put directly in the settings. Thus changing that setting changes what the browser does—you can add, remove or change an in-browser pdf viewer that way. It’s not what Normandy currently does, but it is something it’s at least theoretically capable of. And hitting that extreme would, in my opinion, made it reasonable to start calling it SaaS.

air-gaps 8y ago

Okay, fuck Firefox. I’m done with the internet now. It has outlived it’s usefulness. Cute experiment, but persistent, pervasive user hostility demonstrates that all network connectivity is never to be trusted. Only air gaps and physical media are ever to be trusted, and not implicitly, but through verification. Thanks. Bye.

OJFord 8y ago

about:config > app.normandy.enabled > false

mlthoughts2018 8y ago
One thing that’s still unclear to me is whether you must disable this entry of about:config even if you go through the traditional privacy & settings drop down menus and disable the Firefox studies and usage stats options. If the _only_ way to prevent having a remote entity modify your settings unannounced (even if not for malicious purposes) is to enter about:config and change app.normandy.enable to false, that seems like a situation where the absolute best case, most charitable interpretation is to call it an incredibly deceptive dark pattern from Mozilla.
- scolby33 8y ago
  This. After extensive reading about studies and Normandy here and elsewhere, I’m unable to find a straight answer about this. Does anyone know?
  - OJFord 8y ago
    Studies and Normandy are different things, the former often using the latter. Only 'studies' has a checkbox in about:preferences, 'Normandy' is hidden in about:config .

gouh 8y ago

It's okay to change certain settings if they don't touch privacy, for eg testing WebRender on some subset of users. But it shouldn't touch Privacy related settings. They should separate the settings into Privacy Sensitive and non Privacy sensitive and be only able to remotely change the latter ones

new-hires 8y ago
With a changing of the guard, the honor system can handily disappear. We saw this transpire with the burying of the JavaScript toggle. A new guy showed up, and decided that disabling JavaScript was “an advanced feature” and just too dangerous for ordinary folk. [1, 2] Of course it begins with good intentions, and promises to leave explicit privacy options alone, but new devs show up with different opinion and the old devs are gone, and suddenly privacy options are getting toggled any old time. Beyond even that, we all know that the realities of privacy are never ever cut and dry. Leaky details can expose people in peculiar ways. Fingerprinting preferences and hardware facts for forensic purposes has taught us that much. Viewport size, OS, connection speed, graphics capabilities, hardware acceleration profiles. Even stylometry, choice of words, manner of speech can give people away. In that sense, exposing any user choices might prove to compromise identity to some degree. 1. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=873709 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=873709 2. https://limi.net/checkboxes-that-kill/ https://limi.net/checkboxes-that-kill/ (seriously breathless persuasive writing about how urgent it is to hide the toggle for javascript, among other things, but make no mistake, the high value target was the javascript checkbox)
jillesvangurp 8y ago
Technically, this is just a lightweight way to package up minor settings changes as an alternative to pushing a normal update to do the same. Both are perfectly normal and I think today's situation totally justifies using this to fix this. They do offer a way to turn this off just like you can opt out of security updates if you insist. For the vast majority of users, automated updates are a good thing. It's kind of cool that this worked without a browser restart. My extensions just reappeared while I was watching some netflix.
ptx 8y ago

Phenomenit 8y ago

Does the fix reach tor browser as well? Is Normandy available in tor browser?

Phenomenit 8y ago
Seems like tor browser is unaffected.

dschuetz 8y ago

Oh, I get it now. "Look how fast we could fix an issue with our Normandy preference rollout feature!" Best keep Normandy activated at all time, eh?

akvadrako 8y ago
Isn't this an abuse of the system, breaking the contract about what kind of changes will be pushed on users without their knowledge?
- dschuetz 8y ago
  I don't know. Ironically, I had Normandy enabled (without my knowledge) and that "hotfix" they supposedly rolled out didn't reach my own client. So, what ever that feature is for - it doesn't even work. Apparently you also need to have "studies" enabled as well. It didn't work either. So, I'm waiting for official updated release. If they don't fix this soon - I'm done with Firefox and Mozilla.
  - dralley 8y ago
    The client checks periodically, they can't really "push" out that change immediately to everyone.
    - dschuetz 8y ago
      I'm willing/trying to pull the fix manually, but that doesn't work either.

rectang 8y ago

I'm one of those users who had data collection (including studies) disabled. Changing `app.normandy.run_interval_seconds` to 60 (via about:config) didn't work until I restarted Firefox AND enabled data collection including studies (via Preferences). Then all my plugins came back, and I disabled data collection once again.

Santosh83 8y ago

So I have Normandy turned on and 'install and run studies' turned on and STILL my extensions have been disabled just now, hours after Mozilla pushed the temporary fix through Normandy which I presumably haven't got, despite having it turned on. Latest Firefox on Windows 10.

dangoor 8y ago
I launched Firefox about 10 minutes ago and saw no change. I looked up at the window again a minute or so ago and saw that my addons were back. I'm guessing there's a timer for it to check for new studies?
neogodless 8y ago
I had Normandy enabled, but Studies disabled. Same version and OS. A couple minutes after I enabled studies, my add-ons came back online. Maybe try a toggle/pause/toggle?
- Santosh83 8y ago
  Indeed. Toggling app.normandy.firstrun from its usual false forces a check upon next browser restart and the addons are back.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

mcny 8y ago

I absolutely hate this because it is so tone deaf. What is the point of people like me using Firefox Nightly? Do your tests on me. Don't do stupid shit with people who choose Firefox Stable. Who came up with this idea anyway?

fabrice_d 8y ago
Unfortunately the population of Nightly users is too small to get relevant data in many cases.
- mlthoughts2018 8y ago
  That would seem to be a market signal indicating people generally don’t want to be experimented on by Mozilla. How is a lack of data for Mozilla my problem? Why does it mean that can inject default preference changes?
  - dralley 8y ago
    >How is a lack of data for Mozilla my problem? Why does it mean that can inject default preference changes? It would mean they can't roll out things like hardware acceleration or Stylo or Webrender as quickly despite their numerous manifest benefits.
    - mlthoughts2018 8y ago
      I don’t understand. If users valued those things more than having the browser be a stand-alone piece of software after it is installed, then users would opt in to testing. By not opting in, users would indicated that experiment-avoidance is a feature that gives them more value than the fast rollout of those other features.
      - jamescostian 8y ago
        Would you prefer stable only getting crucial security updates and never release updates to speed things up? Eventually Nightly would be completely different from stable, especially with the switch to Rust. So then Mozilla would have to maintain 2 completely different versions of FF - that's a lot more work! A better middle-ground is to let things get tested by those who opt-in to it (using Nightly and Beta versions), and slowly trickle changes down. That way none of the published versions are so different that Mozilla needs more staff to handle the different versions. And of course, stable users have far fewer issues than nightly/beta users. Certificate expirations throw a wrench in the whole system, but even if you made FF stable never update, you'd still have a problem because the cert expired.

ptx 8y ago

"Pref Rollout is a feature that allows Mozilla to change the default value of a preference for a targeted set of users, without deploying an update to Firefox." Maybe if we put this in terms of user stories... As a user, I don't want to be "targeted". As the person deploying updates, I don't want the deployment updating without an update having been deployed.

dralley 8y ago
An example of "targeting" in this context is "windows user with an Nvidia graphics card". For example, enabling WebRender (the new rendering engine) for those users once it is determined to be sufficiently stable.
- ptx 8y ago
  That sounds like a new version of the software and should be deployed as a new version, with release notes noting that WebRender is now enabled for Nvidia users, so that users are prepared for the change.
  - dralley 8y ago
    The point is gather information on whether it's ready for a full scale rollout. The Firefox developers might know that it might be ready, but the sheer number of software and hardware combinations out there might reveal unknown issues. So instead of rolling it out to 100% of targeted users, you roll it out to 1% of targeted users, and measure regressions to your metrics amongst that group.

dingo_bat 8y ago

Like chromium does for Chrome, is there any project that rips out all telemetry and Mozilla shit from Firefox?

benatkin 8y ago

Firefox has done so much lately to hurt its image, that I wonder if Google has double agents working inside Mozilla to sabotage Firefox.

gilfoyle4ceo 8y ago

Dear Mozilla, Please, please, please stop the automagical updates. Is it really so hard to prompt your users if they'd like to allow a temporary fix/feature to be installed? You use webcompat to push quick fixes for specific sites (hidden) you use Normandy to push future features/fixes (hidden), when your users check their version number via the help/about option you automatically d/l and update the next version(!!??). Why is it so hard to ask if this is something that your users want to do???

anonymousab 8y ago
>Is it really so hard to prompt your users if they'd like to allow a temporary fix/feature to be installed? People might say no, and that would likely very much anger a PM somewhere.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

hartator 8y ago

Why not just update their SSL certificate?

teddyfrozevelt 8y ago
Because it's not an SSL certificate.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Tharkun 8y ago

I had never heard of this Normandy nonsense. I have certainly never willingly enabled it. Yet according to my preferences, it's enabled. And apparently it's a feature that lets Mozilla remotely mess with my preferences. What the actual fuck? When did Firefox go from being a privacy-conscious browser to being this pile of nonsense? I'm not amused.

dralley 8y ago
An important detail is that it only changes the default preferences. It will not change anything that you have changed yourself.
jimrandomh 8y ago
Most large software projects have something like this. The typical use case is rolling out a feature gradually, to limit the number of users impacted if a new feature has problems: first you include the feature in a release, but disabled by default; then you turn it on for a small percentage of users. If instrumentation from those users reports crashes, you abort; otherwise, you enable it for everyone else.

RpFLCL 8y ago

I understand that this isn't a backdoor, it's a frontdoor insofar as there is a wiki page about it. What concerns me is that Normandy isn't communicated in the UI of the browser settings, and that Firefox is allowing Mozilla to target me based on any of these: Targeting can be based on many criteria, including: Firefox version channel (release, beta, nightly) a percentage of users country Firefox locale installed add-ons profile age any preference value many keys in Telemetry Any preference value? Is this targeting being done locally or remotely? Once I've been 'targeted' what information about me is then sent to Mozilla? I'm not sure I want any of those shared, especially the last several. Yet this was enabled by default and the only way to disable Normandy is through about:config? Does disabling that also stop whatever allowed the targeting in the first place? It just seems like there was a real lack of informed consent regarding this feature and it only came to light when the team used this as a shortcut for fixing the add-on disaster.

nyuszika7h 8y ago
Unticking "Allow Firefox to run and install studies" under Settings > Privacy & Security should disable Normandy.
- HNthrow22 8y ago
  I have all of the privacy options unchecked including studies but Normandy (which I've just found out about via this issue) is still enabled.
- masterfooo 8y ago
  It seems still enabled in about:config
- c197 8y ago
  It doesn't, Normandy is still enabled and will install studies against the user's will. This is disgusting.

stevenwliao 8y ago

I don't understand the criticisms in this thread. Why would anyone trust Mozilla's code but not their preferences configurations?

erikpukinskis 8y ago
Yes, technically code and preferences are both the exact same thing: code. Preferences are declarative code, but so are Webpack configs and Rails apps and UI schemas and all kinds of things.
pdkl95 8y ago
Trust isn't a single static Boolean value. It depends on the situation, reputation, and many other factors. Trust is continuously re-evaluated; just because someone's coding ability was trusted in the past does not imply that their current or future actions will also be trusted. However, the current problem people are criticizing is not about Mozilla's choices for default preferences. The specific changes they ship with the browser or update with Normandy are not (currently) particularly interesting. The problem is that a new way to remotely control the browser was added unannounced that bypassed existing update methods. If you want to change other people's property, you get permissio9n first. If someone doesn't want to give you permission and you change their property anyway, we usually call that something like "trespassing", "vandalism". It doesn't matter if you think it's an important change or if you don't understand (or even know) their reason for not granting permission; their computer is their property, and they don't have to justify why they want to use it in any particular way.

zzo38computer 8y ago

Changing default settings when upgrading the version of a software can be useful sometimes (especially if the new default value is a value that was not possible before), although you should be allowed to force a setting to have a specific value even if that value is the same as the old default value, and be able to require a list of changes to be mentioned so that you can individually enable and disable them before installing the new version of the software.

dschuetz 8y ago

I switched to Vivaldi today.