482794793792894

10 ms·

31.
by 482794793792894 9y ago
Some WebExtensions will work in all browsers. Other WebExtensions will only work in certain browsers that offer a capability that the extension needs. Kind of like webstandards have always worked. For example, Opera and Firefox support the
32.
by 482794793792894 9y ago
You can stick to Firefox 52 ESR until June 26, 2018, if you want. Mozilla is still working on a more powerful keyboard extension API for WebExtensions and I imagine some extension will be leveraging this at that point. No, it won't be
33.
by 482794793792894 9y ago
There's more steps necessary to enable WebRender in full capacity. I presume, though, that things are buggier then and the potentially introduced performance drops might actually make it feel slower for now. I don't know, though,
34.
by 482794793792894 9y ago
I have it enabled on one of my Firefox profiles. Would not yet recommend for normal browsing, there's still rendering errors and sometimes seemingly random performance drops, but you can definitely see it working. That is, I have to be
35.
by 482794793792894 9y ago
Vulkan has been a consideration from the earliest architecturing steps done in WebRender. So, the internal pipelines are all set up to be mapped to Vulkan's pipelines. It's actually OpenGL which fits less into the architecture, bu
36.
by 482794793792894 9y ago
I don't think, they are obsessed with 60 FPS, that's just what for most people is synonymous to a smooth experience and is often not met by browsers at this point in time. Here's for example an early demo showing Wikipedia at
37.
by 482794793792894 9y ago
I remember reading at some point that WebRender could actually be isolated relatively easily and then applied to basically any browser. That sort of already took place, going from Servo over into Gecko. So, it might actually turn into somew
38.
by 482794793792894 9y ago
> From the client side one mitigation might be to have all extensions denied network access by default and have the user manually whitelist those in a little-snitch like manner. I don't think, Google has any interest in doing that.
39.
by 482794793792894 9y ago
> Extensions are the new "Let's play find the download button on a webpage" that's been around for years. Chrome extensions are that. No other browser has this problem. I think, it's necessary to be pointing fing
40.
by 482794793792894 9y ago
Run Firefox. Mozilla audits extensions and extension updates before they get published.
41.
by 482794793792894 9y ago
Did you install the Google Play Services along LineageOS or not? Those by themselves also already make a big difference in the aspects that you named...
42.
by 482794793792894 9y ago
That doesn't really make a difference. Opt-out is essentially the same as just forcing it. The vast majority of users will never even know that they could be opting out.
43.
by 482794793792894 9y ago
The NSA, FBI, CIA and partnering intelligence services from the However-Many-Eyes countries all also have access to Google's servers...
44.
by 482794793792894 9y ago
Yeah, there is a unicode character: ‽
45.
by 482794793792894 9y ago
It does some weird parallax-effect when scrolling, which I assume uses JavaScript, so if that has some error in it somewhere, it's possible that it breaks scrolling completely.
46.
by 482794793792894 9y ago
‽
47.
by 482794793792894 9y ago
> Germany is a great country for stuff like this. They have a relatively high share of Linux users, OpenStreetMap usage, etc. I feel like they're very critical towards their own country and don't take things for granted (not th
48.
by 482794793792894 9y ago
Just because you can view the source code, doesn't mean you're allowed to modify it and then use the modified version for yourself or publish the modified version. GPL ensures that you're allowed these things and that anyone,
49.
by 482794793792894 9y ago
I think, the idea that aluminussoma had (and which sprung to my mind when reading the title, too), is that the questions and the grading would be identical for Jewish people, but that somehow the questions were engineered to be harder to so
50.
by 482794793792894 9y ago
They don't either collect the IP. They receive it, simply because a network communication has to take place, but they don't store it. And while they do collect your browsing history in fuzzied form, it's intermixed with other
51.
by 482794793792894 9y ago
> If this was a feature that was shown to be highly beneficial to your users, then why deploy it to just 1%? Super shady. They've seen this on a small scale, and only among power users. They're now rolling it out to this 1% to
52.
by 482794793792894 9y ago
If you actually look into it, there's basically nothing that you can accuse them of here. There's the possibility that Cliqz does actually start collecting the data, i.e. breaks the contract, commits a crime, and that then Mozilla
53.
by 482794793792894 9y ago
Collecting personally identifying information has to be opt-in. They don't collect personally identifying information.
54.
by 482794793792894 9y ago
The proofs are in the blog post. The code is linked and the statements in the blog post are official statements from Mozilla, therefore if it was factually inaccurate, they could be sued over misleading customers.
55.
by 482794793792894 9y ago
That entirely oversimplifies things, though. For one, Mozilla owns parts of that third party, therefore they presumably do know what happens with that data and can pull the plug from their side, if nefarious things happen. And secondly, Goo
56.
by 482794793792894 9y ago
I think, the Cliqz browser extension will do the same: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cliqz/
57.
by 482794793792894 9y ago
It's described here, how they deal with that sort of stuff: https://gist.github.com/solso/423a1104a9e3c1e3b8d7c9ca14e885...
58.
by 482794793792894 9y ago
Well, first of all, I wouldn't call it "tracking". They're going to be aggregating the data and specifically promise to not create profiles on individual users. Secondly, I wouldn't necessarily call it "third-p
59.
by 482794793792894 9y ago
Because 1% of users is still probably an order of magnitude higher than however many would opt-in and because they want as broad of a user-base. If you only have people that opt-in, you'll pretty much only have power-users.
60.
by 482794793792894 9y ago
Can you at least try to not rip sentences like these completely out of their place? There's people here who won't bother to translate and you're abusing that to make Mozilla look bad. The sentences afterwards: "Cliqz use

More ›