11 ms·
>If you are a Firefox user, you don’t have to do anything to benefit from this security advancement. The epitome of corporate speak: "we're taking away a featu
by Nicksil 5y ago
>If you are a Firefox user, you don’t have to do anything to benefit from this security advancement.
The epitome of corporate speak: "we're taking away a feature of this software. You're welcome."
I expect that kind of talk from Google; hearing it from Mozilla makes me a little sad.
- hnarn 5y agoWhile I agree with removing FTP support, I also agree that phrasing is pretty disgusting.
- jrochkind1 5y agoEspecially because "The FTP protocol itself has been disabled by default since version 88", so any user that hadn't opted in to FTP protocol already had the "benefit" of the "security enhancement", no? But, hey, if you are not yet a FF user, here's where you can download it, in case you're looking for a browser that... lacks FTP support. Something many users are likely to be seeking out.
- krylon 5y agoTo be fair, most non-technical users have no clue what FTP is. Twenty years ago, some non-technical people knew, because a lot of downloading was going on involving FTP servers, but that was... well, twenty years ago. I do not see the benefit of removing FTP. For security concerns, a big warning as with expired TLS certificates would be an acceptable compromise, IMHO. But as someone who knows what FTP is and still uses it on occasion, I don't think FF dropping FTP support is going to impact me very much.
- jrochkind1 5y agoI too agree with the comment I was replying to, "While I agree with removing FTP support", but the marketing-speak is still notable. I don't think anyone who hasn't heard of FTP is seeking out a browser that specifically does not support it.
- TAForObvReasons 5y agoDescribing ads ("sponsored tiles") as "user-enhancing" is arguably worse. https://twitter.com/dherman76/status/433320156496789504 https://twitter.com/dherman76/status/433320156496789504
- alisonkisk 5y ago7 years, wow. Is that the oldest example of Mozilla selling out?
- thewakalix 5y agohttps://archive.vn/eawIS https://archive.vn/eawIS
- wlesieutre 5y agoWe'd be even more secure if they took away HTTP and HTTPS support
- josteink 5y agoWith us all being secured from Gopher already, that’s all that remains to establish a 100% secure browser.
- antisol 5y agoMozilla have been working hard on that for years now. Haven't you been watching their market share? One day they'll get to their holy grail of 0 users and no security problems.
- xg15 5y agoWay ahead of you: https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2015/04/30/deprecating-non-secure-http/ https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2015/04/30/deprecating-non...
- ferdowsi 5y agoFirefox removing support for non-encrypted data protocols makes me more confident in them, so consider me a fan of this messaging.
- handrous 5y agoftps exists. The solution to http wasn't getting rid of it, it was pushing for more https. I'm not saying there weren't good reasons to get rid of ftp support, but that doesn't seem like one.
- desktopninja 5y agoSurprising how many people don't know about ftps. FTP with SSL.
- floatboth 5y agoIt's very obscure. Most things (mostly shared hosting lol) went straight to SSH's SFTP instead.
- alerighi 5y agoSFTP is mainly a *NIX thing. And it's a terrible hack built on top of a protocol meant to be something really different. Also, while in theory SFTP can be as secure as FTPS, in practice it's not. How many people really check that the server public key signature it's the correct one? You know that annoying message that appears the first time you connect to a server and you have to say yes and if you don't it will not let you continue? Not checking that give you the same security as having a HTTPS/FTPS server with a self signed certificate. You trust blindly the identity of the server, but there could be someone doing a man in the middle and stealing all your data. In that situation, FTPS is more secure, mainly because you need a valid TLS certificate that will give you some guarantee about the identity of the server.
- floatboth 5y ago
- tester756 5y agobut why? maintaining features is cost
- amelius 5y agoPerhaps one day we can have a programming language that allows us to write software that doesn't rot or corrode.
- klodolph 5y agoYou can continue to use most command-line FTP programs without problem. Since the terminal is a fairly stable interface, programs written long ago often have no problem compiling and running on modern systems, or only require small changes.
- mananaysiempre 5y agoI wouldn’t actually say that, but it may be more of a problem of ecosystem maturity and priorities than it is one of interface stability: I work under Linux and love it, but getting a 20- or 30-year-old program to compile or run under it is surprisingly more painful than doing the same for a Win32 program of similar age, despite the ostensible stability and undeniably better documentation, including that of historical issues, in the former case. (To be fair, getting an old DOS program to compile or run anywhere except a full VM is an absolute nightmare, even if it can sometimes be offloaded to DOSBox maintainers.)
- klodolph 5y agoI would say it—getting a 20-year-old CLI program to compile and run is often not much trouble at all. Not always, but often. Even if the program was never written from Linux, you can often get it to compile and run by fixing up headers and making some other minor changes to the source code. I’ve had plenty of success compiling and running programs that were only ever designed to run on IRIX or Solaris or other Unix systems.
- 5y ago
- frettchen 5y agoI think what really hurts, for me, is that this has become the general tone from Mozilla - whether the changes are ones I'd agree with or not. I remember back when the Spread Firefox campaign was still around - at the time, Firefox and Mozilla in general felt grassroots, fun, and human. Like a club anyone could join and that anyone would want their friends, family, coworkers, and even strangers or people they didn't like to get in on: an all-in-this-together effort for a better internet. Anymore, Mozilla feels more and more corporate, more like a company - even as Google Chrome (and the many browsers built from Chromium) eats away more and of their market share and they move toward being "the little guy" again - and less and less like a group of people. I think what I really miss is having a browser that made me care about it beyond just wanting alternatives.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ksec 5y ago>I remember back when the Spread Firefox campaign was still around - at the time, Firefox and Mozilla in general felt grassroots, fun, and human. That was long long time ago. I think something like early 00s when Firefox was just launched. Things changed. Mozilla is no longer the same.
- Yizahi 5y agoI thought we should be familiar with this kind of corp speak from Firefox team. This is what they say every time they break or remove useful features in the pursuit of chromification.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- wolpoli 5y agoI am fine if Mozilla explains that FTP usage is now very low, based on telemetry and that there are FTP clients available for users. However, there is no need to characterizes FTP being dangerous by jumping from FTP is old and is in plaintext, to FTP servers are being exploited and used to distribute malware, to FUD-type statement implying that there are [unspecified] exploits now available to attack Firefox if FTP was enabled. This is just plain disgusting and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
- rasz 5y agoAt this point Google is the sole source of Mozilla income, how do you know this line didnt come directly from them?
- hulitu 5y agoThis on the same line like " Our new CP and terrorism law is for your protection". I already feel much safer knowing that nobody can interfere with my downloads which will be supplied securely by Microsoft, Google and Cloudfare.