dblohm7

21 ms·

301.
by dblohm7 5y ago
> Wow, I did not realize it would send URLs to Google. That does not sound GDPR-compliant. That's not how Firefox does safe browsing. https://feeding.cloud.geek.nz/posts/how-safe-browsing-works-... "One of
302.
by dblohm7 5y ago
(I used to work for Mozilla, and spent a few years on the team that at the time owned the telemetry component.) The way Mozilla does telemetry is different from how most places do. I think that the biggest issue with these discussions is th
303.
by dblohm7 5y ago
I think you ought to recheck your numbers.
304.
by dblohm7 5y ago
Containers are plumbed throughout Gecko. It's not trivial to add, but it's not intractable either. Somebody has to be willing to put in the effort, more than anything.
305.
by dblohm7 5y ago
> But Mozilla is still throwing a tantrum over having to provide it... That's funny, I didn't see any tantrums about policies when I worked there. Citation needed.
306.
by dblohm7 5y ago
That pref is intended for Tor Browser. It works in mainline Firefox but is a massive footgun, because it enables a bunch of behaviours that most users aren't anticipating and don't realize are now occurring as a result of enabling
307.
by dblohm7 5y ago
https://firefox-source-docs.mozilla.org/performance/reportin...
308.
by dblohm7 5y ago
> Even if it's currently implemented by one engine, 1) that engine is used in browsers from many different vendors - Google, Microsoft, Samsung, etc. which represent a huge chunk of the Web That's a really terrible argument, tb
309.
by dblohm7 5y ago
Technically you are correct in that the corporate entity that is Mozilla Corporation is registered as a for-profit company. However, since its sole shareholder is a non-profit Foundation, it is able to invest differently than a typical corp
310.
by dblohm7 5y ago
(Former Mozilla employee) I would be very surprised if they did. The Firefox development workflow does not map very well onto Github.
311.
by dblohm7 5y ago
Yes, I have been poached. The new team’s tech lead started planting the seed. I was just wrapping up my previous project, was unhappy with my management chain, and decided to take him up on it. I was friendly with the new team’s management,
312.
by dblohm7 5y ago
> Yeah I guess it's only bad when other people are doing it. The "other people" don't do Telemetry like Mozilla does. You're making an apples to oranges comparison.
313.
by dblohm7 5y ago
You're never going to get parity to XUL extensions.
314.
by dblohm7 5y ago
Would such shared stewardship of Chromium really help, though? I don't believe that a shared governance structure for Chromium would stop Google from going their own way with Chrome, while effectively yielding the same problems. "
315.
by dblohm7 5y ago
You know that site isolation shipped recently, right? That was a massive, massive amount of work.
316.
by dblohm7 5y ago
FWIW, Mozilla partners with a lot of distros to help ensure that the distro packaging does not negatively impact the Firefox experience.
317.
by dblohm7 5y ago
> Mozilla, for example, completely destroyed a lot of Firefox functionality, even to the point of destroying bookmarks. Relevant: https://dblohm7.ca/blog/2015/08/30/on-webextensions/ https:&#x2F
318.
by dblohm7 5y ago
> running add-ons in a separate process as on Desktop isn't possible, because on Android secondary processes can get killed at any time, which add-ons aren't set up to handle correctly That's true (though it will probably
319.
by dblohm7 5y ago
On the engineering side, there aren't any good reasons. Engineering didn't put in all the effort to implement the add-ons APIs on Mobile only for it to be restricted to such a small set. It's product management's decisio
320.
by dblohm7 5y ago
Unfortunately custom collections are limited to Nightly.
321.
by dblohm7 5y ago
(Former Firefox for Android engineer here) I agree that there should be more allowed add-ons. Engineering didn't put in all the effort to implement the add-ons APIs on Mobile only for it to be restricted to such a small set. Unfortunat
322.
by dblohm7 5y ago
> he way supported add-ons work right now is that there's a list (AKA a collection) of supported add-ons maintained by Mozilla that you see on a phone by default. They're not maintained by Mozilla, but they're "recomm
323.
by dblohm7 5y ago
> Story points are chosen -specifically- to break that connection. And yet they are then used for measuring "velocity."
324.
by dblohm7 5y ago
> This is only due to the failure (and unwillingness) of Mozilla to build a truly modular, expandable browser. Not on Android: https://geckoview.dev
325.
by dblohm7 5y ago
Mostly security and sandboxing stuff.
326.
by dblohm7 5y ago
Firefox already does Detours-style API hooking -- I was its maintainer for several years.
327.
by dblohm7 5y ago
> Am i the only one who views the above statement as something alarming, not something to be admired? (I worked on Firefox for just under 9 years) I agree, it is alarming. Alas, it is the current state of things. (The following is not di
328.
by dblohm7 5y ago
https://ideas.mozilla.org is a dedicated site for user feature suggestions. Perhaps you might want to try submitting over there?
329.
by dblohm7 5y ago
Another reason was because people trying to open omni.jar with zip utilities were always filing bugs, when the real issue was that the utilities couldn’t handle our optimized format. (I owned the JAR code for a few years after Taras left Mo
330.
by dblohm7 5y ago
Also https://telemetry.mozilla.org

More ›