gcp

98 ms·

931.
by gcp 12y ago
Firefox for Android supports extensions, and Phony provides this.
932.
by gcp 12y ago
It used to be that way, but it's been getting worse over time. Seriously, the last 5 years have undone much of the "web standards web" that took a decade to accomplish. If you use Google services, you're going to suffer
933.
by gcp 12y ago
that really doesn't perform well on a lot of mobile devices Maybe not on their default browsers, but you're trying to show the site in Firefox , which worked fine, until they intentionally blocked it. In fact, that's one e
934.
by gcp 12y ago
On Android Chrome isn't open source at all. On Windows/Linux several key parts are closed source, that's quite a bit more "than a bit of Google integration".
935.
by gcp 12y ago
Chrome isn't an open source browser. Google is "one of the selected companies".
936.
by gcp 12y ago
One update to Eve Online had a broken script that removed "boot.ini" in some circumstances. Customers were not amused.
937.
by gcp 12y ago
Actually, that repo is just a user who extracted the Steam .debs into a github repo, the comments are completely misdirected.
938.
by gcp 12y ago
I didn't mention the cookie because it's not part of the protocol. It's how Google's servers behave. We don't know what the NK server does. According to Mozilla... Firefox is open source, you know. Even if you can
939.
by gcp 12y ago
I'm a bit curious how dealing with different opponents is dealt with. It seems that to prove such a model "optimal", some quite strong assumptions have to be made regarding the encountered opponent strategies? Or it's pr
940.
by gcp 12y ago
It does say "a compiler/toolchain". Opus has both fixed point and floating point implementations. The fixed point one was extensively tested on ARM too, I'm sure.
941.
by gcp 12y ago
No, not at all. SafeBrowsing had a separate encryption/MAC key. I think some of the confusion is because the parent poster posted a link to v3 of the protocol, which dropped the key in favor of HTTPS, but the old Firefox version implem
942.
by gcp 12y ago
I don't know where microtimes comes from either. It's entirely possible the per-user key is or contains a microtime - I've never investigated. The per-user key does allow the entity operating the blacklist to easily detect an
943.
by gcp 12y ago
Unique user key that was used for pre-HTTPS SafeBrowsing updates? It was necessary to get the updates MACed before Google had full HTTPS deployment. You got the key over HTTPS, then all subsequent HTTP downloads could use that key for messa
944.
by gcp 12y ago
It is? The problem is that the authoritative source sits inside the Firefox tree. Mozilla makes a standalone version (that doesn't require that tree) available on GitHub, but you're not going to have much luck contributing back if
945.
by gcp 12y ago
That doesn't appear to have been announced. I wonder if it's because the EU was asleep.
946.
by gcp 12y ago
Of course you can. Well at least in Nightly you can, it's possible this was reworked recently (and today's announcement would explain why).
947.
by gcp 12y ago
Funnily there's noone who actually can be verified as a Mozillian to back it up, heh. Would be hard given that it contains several nonsensical statements. Why on earth would Google care whether Mozilla is profitable? Are there really a
948.
by gcp 12y ago
Yes and no. Changeable search engines were obviously a prerequisite for this kind of deal, and Yahoo was one of the first ones to offer the needed APIs (and IIRC, over HTTPS which was required by Mozilla). Changing search engines can be don
949.
by gcp 12y ago
The numbers are never disclosed, but they can usually be inferred from Mozilla's public accounting. That'll take a while, though.
950.
by gcp 12y ago
Because it prevents the worldwide biggest search provider from eventually also taking over those remaining holdouts?
951.
by gcp 12y ago
It's also possible they'd be looking at a stronger and for them untouchable IE->Bing marketshare instead.
952.
by gcp 12y ago
I don't see how that follows. Why would it? That x% of users represents X amount of users who click ads, which means y% of lost revenue. Why would the monetary value of that y% be so different to another search engine vendor? Either it
953.
by gcp 12y ago
They straight up told Mozilla this 3 years ago when they signed the billion dollar contract; Mozilla had 3 years to become profitable Source? Sounds like total bullshit because the default search provider obviously gets traffic, which dri
954.
by gcp 12y ago
if Google is offering less, its likely because Chrome eclipsing Firefox -- and by some measures IE -- has reduced the value of default search placement in Firefox Yahoo is looking at the same marketshare numbers, so that actually can&#x27
955.
by gcp 12y ago
Google currently has the overwhelming share of the search market, which means a large advertising income. If other players get a bigger chunk of the pie, that means more competition.
956.
by gcp 12y ago
Outside the US it's Yandex and Baidu for their respective locales.
957.
by gcp 12y ago
a project wide coup lead by the desktop environment people basically taking over the distro Maybe you should read the OP, for example the "assume good faith" parts. Really.
958.
by gcp 12y ago
I don't know why you got downvoted, but I fear it may be because the people doing that don't consider it "immoral" at all, because they are doing God's work, so ejecting the heathens is by definition right. Edit: Fo
959.
by gcp 12y ago
Can you elaborate why he considers the Debian constitution a toxic document?
960.
by gcp 12y ago
This part resonates well for me: "Now, how did I, standing stout and tall, get forced out of my tribe? I've been a DD for almost 14 years, I should be able to weather any storm, shouldn't I? It turns out that no, the mountain

More ›