gcp

50 ms·

541.
by gcp 10y ago
Thank you for elaborating!
542.
by gcp 10y ago
Can you remember the time when we all chipped in...I think it would help if they had less money Mind = Blown. Taking money for advertising and branding is OK if it's yours? I can get behind that, hahaha!
543.
by gcp 10y ago
The :// is in fact identical, which is actually a bit weird.
544.
by gcp 10y ago
I assume you're being downvoted because you said "it's easy to be critical" and then didn't go on to explain why you thought it wasn't good.
545.
by gcp 10y ago
You seem to imply that Mozilla's continously-breaking-extensions problem is proof that this is untenable, but I don't see any obvious connection between the two. Because the breakage is inevitable as internals invariably change.
546.
by gcp 10y ago
https://www.linkedin.com/in/ellzey Summary seems to be that his open source libraries are very widely used but he couldn't find a job in the Valley and became homeless.
547.
by gcp 10y ago
So how untenable are extensions? An extension API that has a well-delineated API border and limits the internal surface that is exposed is obviously tenable. A full "end-user-hackable" browser where add-ons can access all browse
548.
by gcp 10y ago
Should say CUDA instead of GPU.
549.
by gcp 10y ago
It does seem odd to me that they chose to fork Chromium instead of Firefox WebKit/Blink/Chromium have a large webcompat advantage due to superior marketshare, and Firefox's embedding story is weak. WebKit is big enough that
550.
by gcp 10y ago
IMHO your rant does boil down to the fact that making the browser "end-user-hackable" through extensions was an untenable situation. I mean, you're both saying "This was a big problem because if you recall, every time a
551.
by gcp 10y ago
Getting this "official" certificate is in principle impossible. Of course, in practice sometimes it is possible, but so would reasonably be attacks against DANE (if anyone were using it).
552.
by gcp 10y ago
So we ban paypalsucks.com?
553.
by gcp 10y ago
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1236431 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1271998
554.
by gcp 10y ago
It's very unfortunate there isn't a way to force more responsibility/accountability onto CAs who issue phishing certificates. It's very easy: get the browser vendors to remove them from the root store. It's exceed
555.
by gcp 10y ago
stupid desire to incorporate identity along with encryption. It's not a stupid desire. Encryption is pretty useless without authentication.
556.
by gcp 10y ago
Not only that, it also guarantees there's no MITM. HTTPS without certs means you are talking securely to your attacker :-)
557.
by gcp 10y ago
private healthcare that you're forced to pay as well "une mutuelle" You're not actually forced to pay them, are you?
558.
by gcp 10y ago
Much like djb's code it's forcing the most error prone parts (string handling, memory) to go through a library, or simply forbidding the error prone constructs entirely (static buffers).
559.
by gcp 10y ago
Not at all. Decode performance is generally a very important consideration, as it has to go in all kinds of devices. Unbounded decoding time would be terrible (it would "lock up" embedded devices), and it's almost certainly a
560.
by gcp 10y ago
Why? That's certainly not what happened with Google's browser. Because they can outspend you in engineering resources to push forward, and working with someone elses stack is a burden, not a blessing, if the other side moves mor
561.
by gcp 10y ago
Eventually! It was added to the standard over the objection of the only people with a working implementation, though.
562.
by gcp 10y ago
The whole point of my post, which you seem to have completely and utterly missed, was that you don't need 0-days for exploiting Pale Moon. Every single Mozilla CVE published from Firefox 38 to Firefox 50 is potential issue for it. The
563.
by gcp 10y ago
rebase from FF 38 which has WebRTC This is a bit like saying "Firefox 4 has HTML5". The WebRTC stack in Firefox evolved significantly from Firefox 38 to 50, as did the WebRTC standards themselves. That's why I pointed to in
564.
by gcp 10y ago
The Windows version of Firefox is already sandboxed. (The other platforms are too, but not in release)
565.
by gcp 10y ago
With Pale Moon the largest risk is that as far as I know the ESR branch they forked away from no longer gets security patches from Mozilla. So you probably don't need to do effort to find a 0-day, just browse old Mozilla CVE disclosure
566.
by gcp 10y ago
See https://www.palemoon.org/technical.shtml for details and in particular why they don't support WebRTC. The real reason is that they are based off of an old ESR and their code wouldn't be able to inter-operate
567.
by gcp 10y ago
I feel far more secure doing a video call with Firefox and WebRTC than I do with the alternatives.
568.
by gcp 10y ago
pushed for outright removal without deprecatation And they got rebuffed by people that never managed to ship a working implementation. Standard committees yay!
569.
by gcp 10y ago
it's probably cheaper now to compete in the browser space than ever In the browser space, yes. In the API and platform space, no. Every other browser has already resigned to just "do what Chrome does" instead of expecting C
570.
by gcp 10y ago
matters very little to developers. This was a joke, right? It's doing more to hold back usage of new web standards than pretty much anything out there.

More ›