rockdoe

36 ms·

361.
by rockdoe 11y ago
Shumway?
362.
by rockdoe 11y ago
What I quoted is Pocket's Terms of Service[1], as explicitly stated in the article Which quite obviously don't apply to Firefox in their entirety. The quoted section specifically doesn't apply, and I hope it's obviou
363.
by rockdoe 11y ago
Yes, I was arguing against the complaint about the UX.
364.
by rockdoe 11y ago
That is an argument in favor of increasing adoption of a feature most users would decline if they were presented with the choice. But the question is when the choice is asked, right? If you would have the time to explain the Pocket featu
365.
by rockdoe 11y ago
Sorry, but you are making the MISTAKE of BELIEVING THE ARTICLE IS ACTUALLY CORRECT. This is the actual license of the Pocket code in Firefox: https://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/browser/compo...
366.
by rockdoe 11y ago
Just like most features, right. There's actually a tour of it if you do a fresh update on a release build, IIRC.
367.
by rockdoe 11y ago
Talking about UX studies here probably isn't relevant Of course it is, if the question is why it was bundled by default, rather than leaving it in the add-on store. Also, the more relevant research is that many, many users just clic
368.
by rockdoe 11y ago
Actually, it seems to be to implement the "Contacts API": https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=857730 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/1d77c3062662 Note that it's
369.
by rockdoe 11y ago
No, they're great examples: most people find search useful and don't object to it, even if it brings Mozilla revenue and if it has privacy implications.
370.
by rockdoe 11y ago
They did? KHTML became WebKit. I'm sure many of the original authors moved along with it. And WebKit is far more popular than Gecko.
371.
by rockdoe 11y ago
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2013/ There's some lag in those appearing, though.
372.
by rockdoe 11y ago
Mostly because it's just a rebrand of the ESR releases.
373.
by rockdoe 11y ago
You should file a bug. That's absolutely unacceptable. (And I didn't see this happen, so I suspect it wasn't intended)
374.
by rockdoe 11y ago
Too much choice makes users unhappy. I thought that was well enough known from UX research that it shouldn't be a controversial decision?
375.
by rockdoe 11y ago
http://www.ghacks.net/2015/03/27/firefox-39-tracking-protect...
376.
by rockdoe 11y ago
IIRC Pocket (then called Read It Later) won a Mozilla add-on design competition, the guy won a MacBook and then went on to build a company out of it. Edit: Checking more closely, something like that: http://getpocket.com/blo
377.
by rockdoe 11y ago
The issue, at least for me, is that the browser now downloads binary blobs behind my back... Firefox being open-source was one of the big selling points originally. OpenH264 IS open source. Firefox downloads a pre-built binary (that hap
378.
by rockdoe 11y ago
Self-signed X.509 certificates would have done more for the cause of "secure email" Uh, nope, nope, nope. You can't even revoke those things AFAIK. Also I'm not sure how those are any easier than using PGP.
379.
by rockdoe 11y ago
It's using HLS, so not really HTML5 but an Apple specific proprietary extension. The HTML5 solution is usually to run DASH via a JS demuxer utilizing MSE.
380.
by rockdoe 11y ago
What's the point here? If you want secure email then use an email client that doesn't suck at it? (That said, the key management part of GPG doesn't become easier just because you use Thunderbird)
381.
by rockdoe 11y ago
If they start bundling "free" proprietary third-party services, where the price is a piece of the user's privacy Like search engines? Terrible reasoning. Browsers need these or they won't be competitive. There was a ju
382.
by rockdoe 11y ago
He cares because installing Firefox means you now also install software that can very easily be considered to be spyware. I don't get how that follows...like, at all. The same kind of weird reasoning can be used for setting a default
383.
by rockdoe 11y ago
I find it interesting that he considers Firefox getting H264 support as "the browser getting worse and worse". I don't like patented codecs either but there's no argument that making Firefox actually work with pretty muc
384.
by rockdoe 11y ago
And that Mozilla refuses to merge many of Mike Perry's privacy and security-enhancing patches for Tor Browser Bundle because they make advertisers' lives more difficult. Tor is willing to break webpages and website features if t
385.
by rockdoe 11y ago
You can also never implement anything and then suddenly you have no more users because the competition has all the features. I'm pretty sure that was Mozilla's experience until they switched to rapid release.
386.
by rockdoe 11y ago
It's just a bunch of JS code that never gets loaded. Why would you care if it's still on the disk, are you on a 100M HDD?
387.
by rockdoe 11y ago
I don't get why you're being downvoted. If Firefox is a tool for the Mozilla Foundation to achieve their goals, then yes, it must absolutely be a product that anyone (not just experts) would be willing to use.
388.
by rockdoe 11y ago
Like Google or Yahoo search you mean? Probably because people find it useful.
389.
by rockdoe 11y ago
As has been pointed out dozens of times in this thread, Mozilla didn't get any money from the integration. Although indirectly they of course save engineering salaries from not building the feature themselves.
390.
by rockdoe 11y ago
Is that in Nightly? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-firefox-android-use... Doesn't list that permission. I see no reason why Pocket or Sync would require that permission, although Hello likely does.

More ›