4 ms·

Manifest v3 has been delayed and was/is pretty legitimate, I don't think most people really know wtf they're talking about when it comes to v3. JPEGXL doesn't e

Manifest v3 has been delayed and was/is pretty legitimate, I don't think most people really know wtf they're talking about when it comes to v3. JPEGXL doesn't exactly seem like that big of a deal and is now being developed again - sounds fine, Chrome went "seems like no one wants this" and then people said "we want this" and now it's being worked on. WEI isn't even properly proposed yet, it's so early. So these 3 things aren't really that insane, WEI is easily the worst of them. In the meantime, a) Chrome does everything I need while providing the highest security value. b) Mozilla won't earn me as a user until their CEO is removed It's not laziness, I make the conscious choice to use Chrome because I think it's the best browser right now. I use Brave on Mobile and I haven't switched on my laptop yet because I haven't evaluated it.

another_bear 3y ago
[flagged]
- insanitybit 3y ago
  (I'll just copy/paste from a previous comment) 1. Under her leadership Mozilla has lost virtually all of its users. It has been reduced to less than 10% of what it had before, maybe worse - I haven't kept up. 2. At the beginning of Covid, a time when remote work was on the rise and tech valuations were through the roof, a time when the browser was more important than ever, she took her largest payout and fired hundreds of employees. She was compensated at over $5M dollars, enough money to pay a team of engineers for years. 3. Firefox has utterly failed to capture Enterprise market, where Chrome has managed to dominate. I doubt most people are even aware that a corp managed Firefox is an option, they have done such a poor job marketing it. 4. Every initiative Mozilla has come out with has completely failed to gain traction. Something like a VPN could have been a great fit for Mozilla but they did nothing with it. Mozilla has been incapable, organizationally, of capitalizing on technology - the thing they're kinda supposed to do exclusively. She has failed in every conceivable way as a CEO. She has failed in terms of the mission, she has failed her employees, she has failed her users, she has failed to be an example as a leader. I am not betting on Mozilla's future, I'm not going to assume that they're capable of competing at all let alone competing while maintaining a vision of the open web. They're dysfunctional and it starts right at the top.
  - burkaman 3y ago
    Do you have any concerns about Google's CEO's salary ($226 million) or failed products (https://killedbygoogle.com/ https://killedbygoogle.com/)?
    - insanitybit 3y ago
      > Do you have any concerns about Google's CEO's salary ($226 million) or failed products (https://killedbygoogle.com/ https://killedbygoogle.com/)? The question here isn't "is Google's CEO bad?" it's "Should I be using Firefox on the assumption that it will help create a 'free' web?". I don't care about anyone else's salary. And no I don't care about their other failed products, it's totally irrelevant.
      - burkaman 3y ago
        Ok, but your points have nothing to do with that question. I agree, salary and unrelated products are irrelevant to this discussion. And nobody is asking you to "bet on" Firefox. If you start using it and the company somehow collapses, you could switch to another browser in less than 10 minutes. You don't need to buy stock in Mozilla or something.
        Workaccount2 3y ago
        Bringing up Google has nothing to do with the conversation...it's just whataboutism in the purest sense. Mozilla has a terrible CEO, Google has nothing to do with that.
        nequo 3y ago
        > Mozilla has a terrible CEO, Google has nothing to do with that. Google only has to do with that because this thread is about GP using Chrome instead of Firefox because of Mozilla‘a CEO.
      - danparsonson 3y ago
        > 4. Every initiative Mozilla has come out with has completely failed to gain traction. ... > And no I don't care about their other failed products, it's totally irrelevant. It's quite hard to take your ideological stance seriously.
kybernetikos 3y ago
> Mozilla won't earn me as a user until their CEO is removed Is this because of your opinion on the fairness of her salary, or some other issue?
- insanitybit 3y ago
  Answered in a sibling comment. It's her salary and more.
reitanqild 3y ago
> Mozilla won't earn me as a user until their CEO is removed So use LibreWolf like me: Up to date, based on Firefox, but without Mozilla getting a cent.
- insanitybit 3y ago
  I don't see the point of that. I like Chrome, it solves all of my problems well and it has top notch security too. I like the integrations it has with gsuite, etc. If I'm going to switch for ideological purposes I'm going to need to see a browser that can actually follow through on its ideology.
  - reitanqild 3y ago
    So, in reality, it had nothing to do with the CEO and all to do with the fact that you don't care?
    - insanitybit 3y ago
      I feel like people are responding to my posts based on reading half a sentence or something. I don't really understand what's so hard to get about this. As I said elsewhere: 1. I use Chrome because Chrome works best for me 2. People are proposing I use Firefox because Firefox has a mission that people want to align with 3. Firefox has terrible leadership and can not execute on their mission, I am not switching browsers to one that's run by an utter failure unless they either build a much better browser or they fire the fool who has put them in this position This is not complicated. If you're asking me to use a worse product (from my perspective) for ideological reasons, which I actually align with, then using that product had better actually advance that ideology - something I do not believe Mozilla is capable of doing while their current CEO is sitting. I have then expressed why I believe the CEO is incapable and a failure. Saying "But Google's CEO is bad" doesn't change that - I'm not using Chrome because of ideological reasons. This seems insane to have to spell out repeatedly. edit: I think Dang consolidated the posts - thanks, I realized that it was getting egregiously repetitive.
wzdd 3y ago
I rely mostly on the discussion around the implications for ublock origin when looking at manifest v3, because gorhill seems to be engaging with it in good faith. Browsing the issue about it (https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338), it seems that manifest v3 blocks quite a lot of stuff out of the box. The fundamental issue seems to be that by mv3 prevents you from running arbitrary code to do filtering. This is concerning because it means that if sites / ad networks start coming up with ways to serve ads which can't be blocked by DeclarativeNetRequest (the issue lists a few), then ublock origin won't be able to block those ads. The way it's framed in the issue is "DNR is an obstacle to innovation." There is currently a workaround in "ublock origin lite" (the mv3-compliant version) which lets you opt into regular ublock-origin-style filtering on a per-site basis. Even if this workaround isn't removed, it still means ... opting in to full filtering on a per-site basis, and acknowledging a browser warning each time. MV3 clearly puts control of how ad-blocking works back into the hands of the company who supplies the browser and makes its money by serving ads.
- insanitybit 3y ago
  I think it's worth noting that MV3 also solves problems. Like, the fact that an extension can do arbitrary things is obviously very dangerous. The ability to intercept arbitrary API calls and scripts is very powerful. So the goal is to remove that power, so that it can not be abused. Then the question is "and how do we solve the legitimate use cases?" - hence the years of working with people like Gorhill to help build a better API to serve the ad blocking use case. MV3 was delayed because, despite the numerous changes made to MV3 to satisfy these use cases, it's clear that there needs to be more work to do so.
  - wzdd 3y ago
    Yes, I look forward to a modified MV3 which addresses the concerns above.

another_bear 3y ago

[flagged]

insanitybit 3y ago
(I'll just copy/paste from a previous comment) 1. Under her leadership Mozilla has lost virtually all of its users. It has been reduced to less than 10% of what it had before, maybe worse - I haven't kept up. 2. At the beginning of Covid, a time when remote work was on the rise and tech valuations were through the roof, a time when the browser was more important than ever, she took her largest payout and fired hundreds of employees. She was compensated at over $5M dollars, enough money to pay a team of engineers for years. 3. Firefox has utterly failed to capture Enterprise market, where Chrome has managed to dominate. I doubt most people are even aware that a corp managed Firefox is an option, they have done such a poor job marketing it. 4. Every initiative Mozilla has come out with has completely failed to gain traction. Something like a VPN could have been a great fit for Mozilla but they did nothing with it. Mozilla has been incapable, organizationally, of capitalizing on technology - the thing they're kinda supposed to do exclusively. She has failed in every conceivable way as a CEO. She has failed in terms of the mission, she has failed her employees, she has failed her users, she has failed to be an example as a leader. I am not betting on Mozilla's future, I'm not going to assume that they're capable of competing at all let alone competing while maintaining a vision of the open web. They're dysfunctional and it starts right at the top.
- burkaman 3y ago
  Do you have any concerns about Google's CEO's salary ($226 million) or failed products (https://killedbygoogle.com/ https://killedbygoogle.com/)?
  - insanitybit 3y ago
    > Do you have any concerns about Google's CEO's salary ($226 million) or failed products (https://killedbygoogle.com/ https://killedbygoogle.com/)? The question here isn't "is Google's CEO bad?" it's "Should I be using Firefox on the assumption that it will help create a 'free' web?". I don't care about anyone else's salary. And no I don't care about their other failed products, it's totally irrelevant.
    - burkaman 3y ago
      Ok, but your points have nothing to do with that question. I agree, salary and unrelated products are irrelevant to this discussion. And nobody is asking you to "bet on" Firefox. If you start using it and the company somehow collapses, you could switch to another browser in less than 10 minutes. You don't need to buy stock in Mozilla or something.
      - Workaccount2 3y ago
        Bringing up Google has nothing to do with the conversation...it's just whataboutism in the purest sense. Mozilla has a terrible CEO, Google has nothing to do with that.
        nequo 3y ago
        > Mozilla has a terrible CEO, Google has nothing to do with that. Google only has to do with that because this thread is about GP using Chrome instead of Firefox because of Mozilla‘a CEO.
    - danparsonson 3y ago
      > 4. Every initiative Mozilla has come out with has completely failed to gain traction. ... > And no I don't care about their other failed products, it's totally irrelevant. It's quite hard to take your ideological stance seriously.

kybernetikos 3y ago

> Mozilla won't earn me as a user until their CEO is removed Is this because of your opinion on the fairness of her salary, or some other issue?

insanitybit 3y ago
Answered in a sibling comment. It's her salary and more.

reitanqild 3y ago

> Mozilla won't earn me as a user until their CEO is removed So use LibreWolf like me: Up to date, based on Firefox, but without Mozilla getting a cent.

insanitybit 3y ago
I don't see the point of that. I like Chrome, it solves all of my problems well and it has top notch security too. I like the integrations it has with gsuite, etc. If I'm going to switch for ideological purposes I'm going to need to see a browser that can actually follow through on its ideology.
- reitanqild 3y ago
  So, in reality, it had nothing to do with the CEO and all to do with the fact that you don't care?
  - insanitybit 3y ago
    I feel like people are responding to my posts based on reading half a sentence or something. I don't really understand what's so hard to get about this. As I said elsewhere: 1. I use Chrome because Chrome works best for me 2. People are proposing I use Firefox because Firefox has a mission that people want to align with 3. Firefox has terrible leadership and can not execute on their mission, I am not switching browsers to one that's run by an utter failure unless they either build a much better browser or they fire the fool who has put them in this position This is not complicated. If you're asking me to use a worse product (from my perspective) for ideological reasons, which I actually align with, then using that product had better actually advance that ideology - something I do not believe Mozilla is capable of doing while their current CEO is sitting. I have then expressed why I believe the CEO is incapable and a failure. Saying "But Google's CEO is bad" doesn't change that - I'm not using Chrome because of ideological reasons. This seems insane to have to spell out repeatedly. edit: I think Dang consolidated the posts - thanks, I realized that it was getting egregiously repetitive.

wzdd 3y ago

I rely mostly on the discussion around the implications for ublock origin when looking at manifest v3, because gorhill seems to be engaging with it in good faith. Browsing the issue about it (https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338), it seems that manifest v3 blocks quite a lot of stuff out of the box. The fundamental issue seems to be that by mv3 prevents you from running arbitrary code to do filtering. This is concerning because it means that if sites / ad networks start coming up with ways to serve ads which can't be blocked by DeclarativeNetRequest (the issue lists a few), then ublock origin won't be able to block those ads. The way it's framed in the issue is "DNR is an obstacle to innovation." There is currently a workaround in "ublock origin lite" (the mv3-compliant version) which lets you opt into regular ublock-origin-style filtering on a per-site basis. Even if this workaround isn't removed, it still means ... opting in to full filtering on a per-site basis, and acknowledging a browser warning each time. MV3 clearly puts control of how ad-blocking works back into the hands of the company who supplies the browser and makes its money by serving ads.

insanitybit 3y ago
I think it's worth noting that MV3 also solves problems. Like, the fact that an extension can do arbitrary things is obviously very dangerous. The ability to intercept arbitrary API calls and scripts is very powerful. So the goal is to remove that power, so that it can not be abused. Then the question is "and how do we solve the legitimate use cases?" - hence the years of working with people like Gorhill to help build a better API to serve the ad blocking use case. MV3 was delayed because, despite the numerous changes made to MV3 to satisfy these use cases, it's clear that there needs to be more work to do so.
- wzdd 3y ago
  Yes, I look forward to a modified MV3 which addresses the concerns above.