mook

45 ms·

631.
by mook 7y ago
There are no release (as in, non-Alpha) builds with updates, last I checked. Developer edition and nighties are not release builds. Unbranded builds don't get updates.
632.
by mook 7y ago
Firefox at least does the screenshot part. https://screenshots.firefox.com/
633.
by mook 7y ago
My understanding (from the outside, so probably wrong) was that a while back they had an expired certificate that broke all add-ons. This caused the existing Firefox for Android (Fennec) to get a bunch of 1-star reviews on Google Play Store
634.
by mook 7y ago
As a relatively newcomer to bazel, I did find it arcane: - I couldn't find an easy way to list targets - in particular, a way to show me the path to the build artifacts (so that I could inspect it in my editor) - I couldn't find a
635.
by mook 7y ago
> Google Analytics was also full of strange decisions and unnecessary complexity. Presumably, Google Analytics would be big on dogfooding… which is probably a sign that analytics-driven development isn't quite as useful as it's
636.
by mook 7y ago
Unfortunately the browsers persist in not providing the necessary APIs to allow the password managers to work safely. The Mozilla bug (1344788) has been open for three years with no meaningful action in 2. It's been stuck waiting for s
637.
by mook 7y ago
I didn't want to block ads either; originally I just used policeman / uMatrix. Unfortunately Google analytics broke pages (because some pages required all scripts to load before rendering anything), so I had to switch to uBlock Or
638.
by mook 7y ago
You might need to double check your requirements — SFTP is a very different protocol from FTP/FTPS. Using SFTP for something like document scanners without strong Unix roots would be surprising to me, at least.
639.
by mook 7y ago
While I have no insight to their plans, perhaps a non-GC toolchain could still be used for short-lived programs (such as command line tools)? Don't even need to free anything if it's short enough, the OS can deal with it when the
640.
by mook 7y ago
From the linked incident report: > Now that we understand the importance of add-on support for mobile (ratings plummeted during the incident), we might want to reconsider that strategy/priority for Fenix. Well that's promising
641.
by mook 7y ago
> Ignoring for a moment that this rationale can support any tax policy at all (including 100% tax rates)... This holds for all businesses, not just large tech companies. So why is the tax focused on the latter? Other than the reasons the
642.
by mook 7y ago
Thank you (and the other Mozillians) for trying to engage the feedback! Please remember when planning that extensions need time to be fixed, which means there must be significant overlap between when extension support in Fenix shows up and
643.
by mook 7y ago
Unfortunately, Firefox for Android _beta_ is dead (it makes no sense to do ESR for beta), and the profiles are not shared, so I'll be stuck with an old Firefox. My bad for trying to help I guess.
644.
by mook 7y ago
> Apple does collect plenty of telemetry and I assume they wouldn't add it to more models if they figured out that nobody used it. I just want to point out that telemetry can be misleading; for example, they could also notice lots o
645.
by mook 7y ago
Stupid question: if they don't ship an i386 version, how would the snaps be created? Since there would no longer be a root disk it could be based on… I'm probably missing something obvious?
646.
by mook 7y ago
Do they then run the risk of somebody publicizing the security issues early? For example, if somebody already likes AMD better and gets angry at Intel for ignoring security risk. Or is this additional mitigations for already public security
647.
by mook 7y ago
Ah, okay, thanks! My (very unreliable) memory thought it was sooner; that was why I picked 66 (released in March) rather than 67 (May). The security issues in 60.0.2 (June 6 2018) is now public.
648.
by mook 7y ago
Mozilla used to open up the security bugs after the fix is out for a while. I say used to because I notice that the security issues fixed in Firefox 66.0 (released in March according to the release notes) still appear to be private. I suspe
649.
by mook 7y ago
Even with smartphones and social media, there's no reason it can't be 1989 again. Social media is controlled by the government in China; it's not like people get to discuss 1989 today.
650.
by mook 7y ago
I thought Servo itself was mostly de-funded outside of Quantum; was that not correct? I'd love to hear otherwise.
651.
by mook 7y ago
I thought GeckoView is Android-only? Which means Microsoft couldn't exactly use it for Edge…
652.
by mook 7y ago
No, that's the post that _promised_ a post-mortem: > We’ll be running a formal post-mortem next week and will publish the list of changes we intend to make
653.
by mook 7y ago
They really can't, though. There's a pile of corpses of people who tried to embed Gecko, because it turns out Netscape/Mozilla is really bad at keeping a stable ABI. I doubt anybody remembers K-meleon anymore, for example.
654.
by mook 7y ago
Didn't Mozilla promise to publish a post-mortem on the add-on thing two weeks ago? Did that ever happen? Not the CTO post during the issue; the follow up that was supposed to be more technical.
655.
by mook 7y ago
We have that already! Except it goes the other way; using non-Chrome on Google properties gives you a slightly worse experience. YouTube on Firefox desktop is still terrible.
656.
by mook 7y ago
Actually I believe Windows 2000 had support for language packs (MUI if I remember correctly). You _had_ to start with an en-US install to use those, so the bit about different language versions installing different files was still correct.
657.
by mook 7y ago
They did have that capability (see https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Go_Faster/System_Add-ons/Pr... ), at least the linked repository had commits in 2016. I can't tell from a 30 second search why that no
658.
by mook 7y ago
> My point of view as a long-time Firefox user that cares about privacy but also knows we live in an imperfect world: It obviously sucks that this happened but I think they handled it very well. I think they handled it terribly… or rathe
659.
by mook 7y ago
Looking at the changeset [1], I'm curious why the explicit check for expiry (line 644/646) didn't work. Unfortunately the mentioned bug is rather light on details; presumably they were collaborating on IRC or something inste
660.
by mook 7y ago
The government gets to fix a price doesn't mean the drug company has to make it (or exist), right? So presumably the price would be set at some point where there is still a profit to be made.

More ›