5 ms·

Your list of "strings attached" to Firefox are fairly weak because most represent a trivial few clicks in settings. Insisting that a piece of software must ship

Your list of "strings attached" to Firefox are fairly weak because most represent a trivial few clicks in settings. Insisting that a piece of software must ship preconfigured exactly to your liking seems a bit selfish to me. Really though, how onerous is it to configure a fresh Firefox profile to suit your preferences? (And how often do you reset your Firefox profile anyway?) Complaints about Pocket are largely emotional. It's a service run by Mozilla just like Firefox Sync and others. I agree it would be neater for Pocket to be implemented as a plug-in, but you could say that about a dozen or more Firefox features besides Pocket, so why single that one out? And really, why do you give a shit how Pocket is implemented if you don't use it anyway? Just switch it off. Firefox Studies is a mechanism that is in principle no different to automatic updates. Studies is functionally less invasive than automatic updates and exists only because Studies allows for progressive roll-outs, rapid roll-outs and rapid roll-backs. Don't like it? Just switch it off.

vcavallo 7y ago
i think it’s a principle thing. for 90% of people, they’ll use it with default settings. seems like OP doesn’t want to support the usage of those default services in general (say, google search default?), so supporting a product that implicitly advances their usage is unattractive.
- sjwright 7y ago
  It's a principle thing? No, it's a train wreck. It's a sure-fire recipe for cutting the installed base of Firefox in half overnight. Using your example and estimate, the 90% of people who use default settings will install Firefox and then immediately conclude it's broken because it can't search the internet. So they'll just switch back to Chrome and never try Firefox again. Remember, these are the "default settings" people. They're not going to change the default settings. And with the OP's prescription for "no predefined search engines," there won't be a "Google" setting anyway even if they did try. Train wreck.
  - prophesi 7y ago
    This is an oddly vehement response to a lot of sane defaults. One simple solution to this "train wreck" would be for Firefox to simply link users directly to the search engine settings if they try to search without one set.
    - sjwright 7y ago
      That’s not a simple solution because the OP is not just calling for the removal of a default search engine, but also calling for "no predefined search engines," so there will be nothing in settings to choose from.
      - prophesi 7y ago
        My point is that you can have sane defaults without sacrificing usability. I'm sure with a few minutes of brainstorming, you could find a solution that both educates the user on why a predefined search engine is a bad practice, and direct them to resources to make an educated-choice on which one they'll choose.
        chc 7y ago
        What you're describing is a terrible user experience. The only people who would want that are people who don't need the education. The people who need the education don't want to spend money on software just for it to lecture them when they launch it and force them to make a bunch of decisions. This would literally be paying Firefox to make you do extra work.
        prophesi 7y ago
        True, which is why I go back to my original comment of just having it take you to the search engine settings, with the different services listed out. It's a reasonable compromise of being honest & sane without much friction on the user's end. I know you're claiming that's not what the OP is calling for, but we're literally just going on four words from them. Regardless, "train wreck" is an over-exaggeration for either of our assumptions.
pseudalopex 7y ago
Firefox Sync is client-side encrypted, open source, and theoretically self-hostable. Pocket is none of those.
- sjwright 7y ago
  These are all good reasons to not use Pocket. I do agree that it should be easier to disable. I guess I just don't see it as a big deal because I disabled it years ago and it hasn't ever come back.
  - pseudalopex 7y ago
    Pocket replaced Reading List, which was all of those things. Pocket was a third party when Mozilla integrated the service into Firefox. Mozilla employees denied for months that Mozilla took money for the integration. It came out later that Mozilla took money for referrals. Pocket doesn't follow Mozilla's privacy principles.[1] Despite that, the Pocket website says "as a member of the Firefox family, privacy is paramount."[2] Mozilla committed to make Pocket open source over 2 years ago. There are no longer plans to release the server-side code.[3] It's a big deal to some people because they trusted Mozilla and vouched for Mozilla to other people. My parents understood "even Mozilla can't see your bookmarks". Explaining that Mozilla could see the new kind but not the old kind was harder. [1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/principles/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/principles/ [2] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/pocket/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/pocket/ [3] https://github.com/Pocket/extension-save-to-pocket/issues/75#issuecomment-467098363 https://github.com/Pocket/extension-save-to-pocket/issues/75...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
fouc 7y ago
He's basically saying the PAID version of firefox probably shouldn't be promoting google or other services with kickbacks.
- untog 7y ago
  But the vast (vast!) majority of users will be expecting Google as an option when they want to search. Removing it from the paid product by default would be a negative in terms of user experience. From the end user perspective you'd be asking money for a product that takes more effort to set up. That's silly.

vcavallo 7y ago

i think it’s a principle thing. for 90% of people, they’ll use it with default settings. seems like OP doesn’t want to support the usage of those default services in general (say, google search default?), so supporting a product that implicitly advances their usage is unattractive.

sjwright 7y ago
It's a principle thing? No, it's a train wreck. It's a sure-fire recipe for cutting the installed base of Firefox in half overnight. Using your example and estimate, the 90% of people who use default settings will install Firefox and then immediately conclude it's broken because it can't search the internet. So they'll just switch back to Chrome and never try Firefox again. Remember, these are the "default settings" people. They're not going to change the default settings. And with the OP's prescription for "no predefined search engines," there won't be a "Google" setting anyway even if they did try. Train wreck.
- prophesi 7y ago
  This is an oddly vehement response to a lot of sane defaults. One simple solution to this "train wreck" would be for Firefox to simply link users directly to the search engine settings if they try to search without one set.
  - sjwright 7y ago
    That’s not a simple solution because the OP is not just calling for the removal of a default search engine, but also calling for "no predefined search engines," so there will be nothing in settings to choose from.
    - prophesi 7y ago
      My point is that you can have sane defaults without sacrificing usability. I'm sure with a few minutes of brainstorming, you could find a solution that both educates the user on why a predefined search engine is a bad practice, and direct them to resources to make an educated-choice on which one they'll choose.
      - chc 7y ago
        What you're describing is a terrible user experience. The only people who would want that are people who don't need the education. The people who need the education don't want to spend money on software just for it to lecture them when they launch it and force them to make a bunch of decisions. This would literally be paying Firefox to make you do extra work.
        prophesi 7y ago
        True, which is why I go back to my original comment of just having it take you to the search engine settings, with the different services listed out. It's a reasonable compromise of being honest & sane without much friction on the user's end. I know you're claiming that's not what the OP is calling for, but we're literally just going on four words from them. Regardless, "train wreck" is an over-exaggeration for either of our assumptions.

pseudalopex 7y ago

Firefox Sync is client-side encrypted, open source, and theoretically self-hostable. Pocket is none of those.

sjwright 7y ago
These are all good reasons to not use Pocket. I do agree that it should be easier to disable. I guess I just don't see it as a big deal because I disabled it years ago and it hasn't ever come back.
- pseudalopex 7y ago
  Pocket replaced Reading List, which was all of those things. Pocket was a third party when Mozilla integrated the service into Firefox. Mozilla employees denied for months that Mozilla took money for the integration. It came out later that Mozilla took money for referrals. Pocket doesn't follow Mozilla's privacy principles.[1] Despite that, the Pocket website says "as a member of the Firefox family, privacy is paramount."[2] Mozilla committed to make Pocket open source over 2 years ago. There are no longer plans to release the server-side code.[3] It's a big deal to some people because they trusted Mozilla and vouched for Mozilla to other people. My parents understood "even Mozilla can't see your bookmarks". Explaining that Mozilla could see the new kind but not the old kind was harder. [1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/principles/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/principles/ [2] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/pocket/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/pocket/ [3] https://github.com/Pocket/extension-save-to-pocket/issues/75#issuecomment-467098363 https://github.com/Pocket/extension-save-to-pocket/issues/75...

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

fouc 7y ago

He's basically saying the PAID version of firefox probably shouldn't be promoting google or other services with kickbacks.

untog 7y ago
But the vast (vast!) majority of users will be expecting Google as an option when they want to search. Removing it from the paid product by default would be a negative in terms of user experience. From the end user perspective you'd be asking money for a product that takes more effort to set up. That's silly.