this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2024
2 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59651 readers
2643 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago (5 children)

Saying this about any corporation's product is guaranteed not to age well.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Mmm mmm mmm, Bill Cosby tells me to love my puddin' pops!

........i feel sleepy......

[–] Chozo@fedia.io 1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Yeah, it's strange just how readily the blinders go up wherever Mozilla is concerned. They're a corp, just like any other; if they had the money and leverage, they'd be just as aggressive as Google. Have people already forgotten that time they laid off 200+ employees and then gave all the execs bonuses?

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

But they haven't threatened to undercut ad blocking yet, so as a comparison they are better.

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Absolutely, but Mozilla is pretty much owned by Google anyway, and falling in love with these companies as wide eyed fanboys never looks good when they eventually turn.

[–] OpenStars@discuss.online 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I wouldn't say "owned", but the rest... yeah:-(

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

Who provides the majority of their funding?

[–] Sordid@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

It's okay to like them while they do good and then change your mind when they turn evil.

[–] timewarp@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

You forgot to also mention that they are a cult where you get attacked if you say anything negative about Mozilla.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You forgot to not shill for an actual corporation

[–] timewarp@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm not shilling for anyone. If you want to discuss actual technical details I'm happy to do so. If you're here just to share your feelings absent facts then I don't care what you have to say.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

"this is way safer for users" may as well be feelings. It's not backed up by anything but a clear boner for Google

[–] timewarp@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

It is literally explained in the first part of the uBOL GitHub page:

https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home#description

It's like you haven't even done the most basic research that anyone with anything useful to say would do. Why?

[–] beejjorgensen@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 3 months ago

Looking around, I don't think that's true. Lots of bad things are freely said about Mozilla and the people running it.

[–] Boozilla@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I'm grateful for FF, but they also annoy me at times. Just little stuff probably not worth bitching about in detail. But also a peek at the potential for problems that you're talking about.

So of course I'll bitch about it.

I call it the "stop whatever you think you'd rather do right now and pay attention to our product" type shit.

Imagine you have a combination wrench and whenever you take it out of the toolbox it starts yammering at you about how great of a wrench it is and all if its shiny features. Fucking ridiculous, right?

So why do we tolerate software that does that?

Way too much software does this pushy shit. Just stay outta my face and do your actual job, software.

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

We're so fucking used to ads we don't even always realize we're getting pushed propaganda

[–] Blaster_M@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Because people have the attention span of a goldfish and if you aren't reminding them every 5 seconds of the features they have available they'll forget they do in fact use them and then complain to support because they can't spend 5 seconds on the help page.

I say this, not in defense of mozilla, but in frustration at having to deal daily with these kinds of issues. You can put giant screen-size arrows on where to go / what single "do the thing" button to press and people will still forget 5 seconds later.

[–] Boozilla@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

Good point. That's true, there is definitely that side of it. I think what you're talking about is less obnoxious than the stuff that feels forced and make-the-boss-happy promotional. Push notifcations for no reason, etc. It's a spectrum from necessary to uneccessary, and there's too much of the latter IMO.

[–] viking@infosec.pub 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Firefox is a foundation, not a corporation. And I'm already using Fennec instead of the official release.

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago

No. Firefox is a product. Mozilla is a corporation AND a foundation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation

[–] parpol@programming.dev 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

It is open source so not really a corporation's product.

They just maintain it, and the moment they screw up, a fork will take over from there.

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Chromium (Google Chrome's base) is also open source.

And yet, we're still at a corporation's mercy as to whether everything Chromium-based gets ruined by Google's fuck-what-the-users-want policies. Like with Manifest V3. And JXL support. And extensions on mobile.

[–] parpol@programming.dev 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You can easily branch off from before manifest v3, and some browsers do. The problem with manifest v3 is that most users do not care. But let's say chromium loses its ability to use tabs, you can bet it gets rolled back before it reaches news media.

[–] AWittyUsername@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Except now you have to maintain a branch that's missing everything after that release upstream.

[–] parpol@programming.dev 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

And that's exactly what is happening to some chromium-based browsers.

[–] AWittyUsername@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

Yeah you can probably do periodic merge or rebase etc. But then you have the fun of merge conflicts

[–] timewarp@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Users do want MV3. The people complaining about it are in the minority.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Users don't know what the fuck Manifest is period. They just click the internet button. And for the longest time that meant the E with a loop around it. Now that means the multicolored circle.

[–] timewarp@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Users know that they want more security. MV3 makes a major of users that use Chrome safer from malicious extensions.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I get what you're saying, but the average person has no idea what it is, why they should care, or anything about it. All they see is Google making their extensions stop working. And when that includes some of the most popular extensions, that directly affect Googles revenue, they're going to think that's the reason.

The overwhelming majority of users get their extensions from the Chrome Web Store... Which Google has full control over. Users expect them to be blocking almost all malicious extensions before they're even available to download.

[–] z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 months ago

This. Google is pushing MV3 to single out and neuter the more robust and customizable ad blockers, like uBO. They're trying to appease their advertising investors by force feeding them to you and they're plugging the leaks.

If Firefox ever gets popular enough, what do you wanna bet money bags Google, their primary monetary contributor, will put a condition on the next round of funding that they stop support for MV2?

Stay small and crazy customizable Firefox.

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 months ago

the minority of people complaining about it are the only ones who know what it even is

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Why the hell would a user want MV3?

[–] timewarp@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Because it makes a majority of users that use Chrome much safer. Do you do any basic research? Do you need me to point you to the getting started guide?

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It doesn't though. An adblocker is your VERY most important tool in a good security posture. Googles playing any users who ask for MV3 for fools

[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

The average user is and always will be an ignorant and careless user. And they are the majority. As in over 50%

[–] AWittyUsername@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

So is Android. So is Chromium. So is React, and Flutter. So is Java.

Open source doesn't mean FOSS.

[–] parpol@programming.dev 0 points 3 months ago

These are maintained by corporations, but for every screw up, there are superior forks maintained by someone else.

The best forks of android are degoogled forks. The best forks of chromium are degoogled forks.

[–] bamboo@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Open source does mean FOSS. It doesn’t mean community-oriented.

[–] AWittyUsername@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No it doesn't. Different licenses dictate what you can and can't do with open source software. Some are more restrictive than others. Open source simply means that the source code is freely available.

[–] bamboo@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago

It absolutely does. Open source is not simply source-available, it means that it follows the open source definition. https://opensource.org/osd