4 ms·

Note that these statistics would, presumably, exclude all users who disable telemetry in Firefox. Since many of those outraged at the interruption to addons see

Note that these statistics would, presumably, exclude all users who disable telemetry in Firefox. Since many of those outraged at the interruption to addons seem to overlap frequently with those who object to and disable telemetry and studies on principle, their departure over this incident could well have no impact whatsoever on the metrics you linked above. It must be a nightmare for the Firefox team to have a minority group of quick-to-anger users that refuse to allow themselves to be taken into account by usage metrics, refuse to allow their browser to participate in studies, and then object loudly when decisions are made that discount them.

user17843 8y ago
I doubt this. There are extension update pings, and my guess is that the number of users is deducted from the update pings, but I could be wrong.
- floatingatoll 8y ago
  “How dare Firefox check for updates from a remote server” is a real thing that’s been said in support of many “privacy” guides that disable all Firefox and addons autoupdates, so I wouldn’t bet the farm either way.
  - lugg 8y ago
    Yea but there is valid reasons for controlling random network access with an iron fist. It's not usual user behaviour but it's one of Firefoxes many niche audiences. Alienating them will just fragment the base. Also remember these vocal niches bring in a lot of family and friends as well.
Karunamon 8y ago
Who's fault is that, at the end of the day? Mozilla didn't have to structure their addon system in such a way that their (in)actions could disable the addons of every Firefox user on the planet. Mozilla did not have to abuse the studies mechanism (also on by default) to ship a workaround. Mozilla did not have to disable the option that would let me work around this problem by myself (which is going to cause me no end of fun when I get into work tomorrow). If the Firefox team thinks their development concessions are a pain in the ass, try being directly accountable for the repercussions, in the "I will be fired if I don't fix this", not the "I will be talked mean about on the internet if I don't fix this" senses. Mozilla didn't have to bundle junk like Pocket and the now-scuppered Hello, both of which could have just as easily been addons suggested on first run. Mozilla didn't have to push promotional addons (the Mr Robot thing) without my express prior consent. I grow exceedingly weary of this narrative that Firefox is above all reproach and criticism because they produce a web browser. How about this instead; if Mozilla wishes for its users to respect them, they can start by respecting their users. That means no opt-out telemetry period, no paternalism about what I can and cannot install, or what options I can change, and so forth. I am beyond sick of this shit. I would love nothing more than a true third option for browsers right now. Firefox hates its users, Chrome sees them as cattle - what's left? I have to use one of the two and take ridiculous steps to cover my own interests, because neither of these companies have them in mind.
- kevingadd 8y ago
  So you're going to complain about the software breaking and also complain about them pushing a hotfix for it? This whole situation isn't ideal but it's absurd to me that people are upset about hotfixes for a bug that they found extremely inconvenient. Do you like the bug or not? The option to turn off the system they used for hotfixes is right there in the privacy settings and they even show you what it's currently being used for (and what it was used for in the past). Like it or not, as far as I know every major browser (maybe not Safari?) is doing the exact same thing except they're less transparent about it. I have literally no idea how to identify what experiments and rollout flags are quietly turned on for my install of Chrome and not for other people because it's not documented anywhere. At least in Firefox the option is right there and so is info on what the option does. "No opt-out telemetry" is a great idea that doesn't function in the real world. If you ship online-connected software with 1m+ users that doesn't have a way to deploy hotfixes or a killswitch for dangerous features or basic telemetry, that is incredible negligence because all it takes is a single bug or a single unanticipated act by a third party and you're DDoSing someone or causing other kinds of mayhem. I'm quite serious. This is why most vendors operating at Mozilla's scale have the same set of tools at their disposal, even if they don't tell you about it. You cannot deploy large-scale connected software in the real world without doing this. It's one thing to go 'Word shouldn't have any telemetry' (okay, sure) and another to go 'this app that connects to thousands of servers, is left open all the time, and runs remote code should not have any telemetry or automatic update mechanism'. The latter is naive on the level of 'just don't write any bugs and your software won't need updates'.
  - Karunamon 8y ago
    So you're going to complain about the software breaking and also complain about them pushing a hotfix for it? The right way to do this is to push a new release, which they've done. The absolutely wrong way to do this is to silently push a fix through a back door that's open by default and rightly shouldn't exist in the first place. Yes, you can do things more efficiently when you ignore the rules and subvert reasonable expectations. Generally though, society takes a dim view of this. >If you ship online-connected software with 1m+ users that doesn't have a way to deploy hotfixes .. That way is checking for updates, and then asking me if I want to install them. Most software does this and it works fine. There are no privacy implications for hitting an API for a number and checking locally if it's higher than a number I have. All clean, all above-board. That way is emphatically NOT playing like a sneak and making changes silently and remotely without asking me about it first. I don't care what you think your good reason is, you don't have the ethical/moral right to make changes on my property without that affirmative consent.
Semaphor 8y ago
Their departure where? Considering the group in question I can't imagine them wanting to switch to Chromium or Opera.
- chappi42 8y ago
  Where do you see issues with Brave or Vivaldi?
  - shadofx 8y ago
    Uses Blink and therefore dependent on Google for security updates.

user17843 8y ago

I doubt this. There are extension update pings, and my guess is that the number of users is deducted from the update pings, but I could be wrong.

floatingatoll 8y ago
“How dare Firefox check for updates from a remote server” is a real thing that’s been said in support of many “privacy” guides that disable all Firefox and addons autoupdates, so I wouldn’t bet the farm either way.
- lugg 8y ago
  Yea but there is valid reasons for controlling random network access with an iron fist. It's not usual user behaviour but it's one of Firefoxes many niche audiences. Alienating them will just fragment the base. Also remember these vocal niches bring in a lot of family and friends as well.

Karunamon 8y ago

Who's fault is that, at the end of the day? Mozilla didn't have to structure their addon system in such a way that their (in)actions could disable the addons of every Firefox user on the planet. Mozilla did not have to abuse the studies mechanism (also on by default) to ship a workaround. Mozilla did not have to disable the option that would let me work around this problem by myself (which is going to cause me no end of fun when I get into work tomorrow). If the Firefox team thinks their development concessions are a pain in the ass, try being directly accountable for the repercussions, in the "I will be fired if I don't fix this", not the "I will be talked mean about on the internet if I don't fix this" senses. Mozilla didn't have to bundle junk like Pocket and the now-scuppered Hello, both of which could have just as easily been addons suggested on first run. Mozilla didn't have to push promotional addons (the Mr Robot thing) without my express prior consent. I grow exceedingly weary of this narrative that Firefox is above all reproach and criticism because they produce a web browser. How about this instead; if Mozilla wishes for its users to respect them, they can start by respecting their users. That means no opt-out telemetry period, no paternalism about what I can and cannot install, or what options I can change, and so forth. I am beyond sick of this shit. I would love nothing more than a true third option for browsers right now. Firefox hates its users, Chrome sees them as cattle - what's left? I have to use one of the two and take ridiculous steps to cover my own interests, because neither of these companies have them in mind.

kevingadd 8y ago
So you're going to complain about the software breaking and also complain about them pushing a hotfix for it? This whole situation isn't ideal but it's absurd to me that people are upset about hotfixes for a bug that they found extremely inconvenient. Do you like the bug or not? The option to turn off the system they used for hotfixes is right there in the privacy settings and they even show you what it's currently being used for (and what it was used for in the past). Like it or not, as far as I know every major browser (maybe not Safari?) is doing the exact same thing except they're less transparent about it. I have literally no idea how to identify what experiments and rollout flags are quietly turned on for my install of Chrome and not for other people because it's not documented anywhere. At least in Firefox the option is right there and so is info on what the option does. "No opt-out telemetry" is a great idea that doesn't function in the real world. If you ship online-connected software with 1m+ users that doesn't have a way to deploy hotfixes or a killswitch for dangerous features or basic telemetry, that is incredible negligence because all it takes is a single bug or a single unanticipated act by a third party and you're DDoSing someone or causing other kinds of mayhem. I'm quite serious. This is why most vendors operating at Mozilla's scale have the same set of tools at their disposal, even if they don't tell you about it. You cannot deploy large-scale connected software in the real world without doing this. It's one thing to go 'Word shouldn't have any telemetry' (okay, sure) and another to go 'this app that connects to thousands of servers, is left open all the time, and runs remote code should not have any telemetry or automatic update mechanism'. The latter is naive on the level of 'just don't write any bugs and your software won't need updates'.
- Karunamon 8y ago
  So you're going to complain about the software breaking and also complain about them pushing a hotfix for it? The right way to do this is to push a new release, which they've done. The absolutely wrong way to do this is to silently push a fix through a back door that's open by default and rightly shouldn't exist in the first place. Yes, you can do things more efficiently when you ignore the rules and subvert reasonable expectations. Generally though, society takes a dim view of this. >If you ship online-connected software with 1m+ users that doesn't have a way to deploy hotfixes .. That way is checking for updates, and then asking me if I want to install them. Most software does this and it works fine. There are no privacy implications for hitting an API for a number and checking locally if it's higher than a number I have. All clean, all above-board. That way is emphatically NOT playing like a sneak and making changes silently and remotely without asking me about it first. I don't care what you think your good reason is, you don't have the ethical/moral right to make changes on my property without that affirmative consent.

Semaphor 8y ago

Their departure where? Considering the group in question I can't imagine them wanting to switch to Chromium or Opera.

chappi42 8y ago
Where do you see issues with Brave or Vivaldi?
- shadofx 8y ago
  Uses Blink and therefore dependent on Google for security updates.