Sylos

73 ms·

601.
by Sylos 9y ago
This isn't about the single case of the guy getting legally taken away his rights. The accusation is that Google has a routine set up for doing this, therefore is very much knowingly taking away people's rights against their will.
602.
by Sylos 9y ago
Also, that it's not legally binding.
603.
by Sylos 9y ago
No worries, they'll release a Parsey McParseface and then the world knows again that they're just a geeky tech startup having some fun. Google is an advertising company. They can easily sacrifice reputation where it brings them th
604.
by Sylos 9y ago
Different advertising networks offer different kinds of ads. It should be up to the webpage owners to decide what kind of ads they want on their website by choosing a different advertising network. A porn or piracy webpage would for example
605.
by Sylos 9y ago
I agree that there's not much new in Mozilla being more left-wing than right-wing, even open-source is practically software communism, but man this dead-beat horse of Eich, again, and still not telling the whole story as it happened, j
606.
by Sylos 9y ago
To my knowledge, it was actually Google cloning the Australis interface, they just happened to release it earlier. And no, these UI changes were not made at the expense of fixing memory and performance issues. The reason why they didn'
607.
by Sylos 9y ago
It's also still considered one of the main-reasons for Chrome eating up all market share, that they now have the leading mobile OS under their control. You can invest a lot of money trying to remedy that, before it's actually a wa
608.
by Sylos 9y ago
Forward, not really. Mozilla has very much already used the opportunity to rip out tons of legacy code and so most legacy extensions are already not anymore compatible, even if you tell Firefox to load them. And just as well, most of these
609.
by Sylos 9y ago
And known to contain questionable things. https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium
610.
by Sylos 9y ago
The new (written from scratch) CSS engine definitely did give a big performance boost, but I'd say it was only about 1/4 of the increase from 56 to 57. Another big factor is the new UI. It's partially just more efficient, par
611.
by Sylos 9y ago
Complain to Google. They're the ones not complying with webstandards.
612.
by Sylos 9y ago
That's usually a problem with one of your extensions. Maybe you can identify it through about:memory. But good news, Firefox 57 will probably actually fix that. By 1) breaking unmaintained extensions for good and 2) switching to an ext
613.
by Sylos 9y ago
They did not announce opt-out telemetry, they started a discussion on the topic.
614.
by Sylos 9y ago
Well, that it broke so often in the past was due the old extension API being so unstable (no stability was ever guaranteed to begin with). The new extension API will be much more stable, especially for something so complex like Tree-Style T
615.
by Sylos 9y ago
As Mr. Patrick Walton over there said, Mozilla is still building up the exact, minimal file-system permissions. So, yes, in that way it is still not yet on quite the same level as Chrome. In terms of security architecture, there is to my kn
616.
by Sylos 9y ago
Standards are largely politics...
617.
by Sylos 9y ago
The compromise mentioned in the article would have only helped with making it more secure.
618.
by Sylos 9y ago
I'd not. Google has a greed that regularly leaves blatant information leaks unfixed for years. For example, you still cannot safely use any third-party keyboard on Android. Because Google refuses to give users a way to block internet a
619.
by Sylos 9y ago
They might not know what it is and as a result of that, they cannot care for it, but there's one thing that root access gives which no user would not want: Ad blocking in apps.
620.
by Sylos 9y ago
It's not necessarily as competitive as Firefox and Chrome are, but it's not particularly behind either. Definitely not far enough to justify dropping support for it, if you don't have additional motives like Spotify here. Tha
621.
by Sylos 9y ago
Because there's no dynamic to keep things in check. It's natural that one browser has more market share for one reason or another, which results in webpage owners looking out more for things functioning in that browser properly, w
622.
by Sylos 9y ago
> However, I wonder. What is the technical reason for not making it default to 1 container by site? Sure that would mean hundreds of containers...but does that pose performance problems? It would break some webpages. Also, yes, the vast
623.
by Sylos 9y ago
For the record, Firefox does also have profiles like Chrome has them: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-... Alternatively type "about:profiles" into the URL-bar, which you can a
624.
by Sylos 9y ago
There's two kinds of on-video ads on YouTube. The ones that you described, which play before or during the video that you're watching, pausing the video, and then the ads that display in a little overlay at the bottom of the video
625.
by Sylos 9y ago
It's mostly the same trust factor as Chromium or in general Apache-, MIT- and similarly licensed open-source software has. It is not the same trust factor as Firefox or in general GPL-, MPL- and similarly licensed open-source software
626.
by Sylos 9y ago
I don't consider getting paid your wage as "getting rich", if that wage is within industry standards for the job that you're doing. And yes, the MoCo is not reinvesting all money all the time right away, but they'll
627.
by Sylos 9y ago
I have never said anything along those lines. Your problems do exist, I very much also am sad to see certain add-ons go. All I said is that in my opinion, and evidentally in Mozilla's opinion, your and my problem with add-ons going awa
628.
by Sylos 9y ago
Vivaldi has less powerful extensions than Firefox 57. I can't imagine Waterfox or Pale Moon being able to keep XUL extensions alive for much longer. It was a major maintenance burden for Mozilla, so it's pretty much an impossible
629.
by Sylos 9y ago
No, it is going to break after every minor update. Most legacy extensions already don't work anymore in Firefox Nightly, even if you tell it to load them [0], simply because Mozilla has very much already used their new freedom to throw
630.
by Sylos 9y ago
Then you must hate all of your software. It's impossible to always continue in the direction that happened to be chosen more than a decade ago. At some point, you will run into problems, which in the case of Firefox were severe problem

More ›