this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
437 points (92.8% liked)

Linux

47544 readers
713 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] fish@feddit.uk 8 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

That's a real bummer about Mozilla and uBlock Origin clashing. It's weird 'cause their values seem pretty aligned with privacy and user control. Hopefully they can smooth things out soon—users like us just want our browsing to be smooth and ad-free!

[–] beefbot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

“Seem” : had been, were previously. Now, Mozilla’s values seem no longer reliably aligned with privacy and user control

[–] yikerman@lemmy.world 1 points 9 minutes ago

I think it’s just Mozilla has a messy moderation. Don’t overreact.

[–] Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee 50 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

Mozilla isn't google. They took it back and encouraged the guy to reach out in the future if any issues arise.

BFD, it's not like they banned his account, just one gimped extension that doesn't do the whole ad blocking experience and even then only because he didn't do anything to try and reverse it. Then after it's restored he throws his tantrum and removes it.

With all the extensions out there false positive detections of malicious apps are going to happen. Nobody has unlimited resources to hire boatloads of devs to review every single line of code of every extension for every update done. That's an insane expectation.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] brianary@startrek.website 29 points 1 day ago

As I've said elsewhere: I wonder what controls Mozilla has in place to prevent gradual takeover of their board by those with an interest in removing Firefox as a competitor. We've watched the sleeper cell in the Supreme Court transform that body into an illegitimate partisan puppet. Mozilla's actions over the last few years would make much more sense if it were being manipulated into self destruction.

[–] Findmysec@infosec.pub 29 points 1 day ago (5 children)

This one is completely on Mozilla. TBH I'm not very happy with their governance either. Stop spending money on bullshit and start working on the damn browser. Stop hassling devs like him who have had an immense contribution to not only open source, but your fucking browser's usage metrics.

I wish another browser standard comes up and we can say goodbye to this google-infested shit-bucket that is mozilla.

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 24 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Ok, but "google-infested shit-buckets" are also Chrome and all the chromium poop cups, even more so one might say.

Not disagreeing, especially with the sad sentiment of what's happening at Mozilla, just trying to keep in mind the other 95% of the browser picture.

[–] Findmysec@infosec.pub 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Which is why I'd like to see a third player. I don't use Chrome except for ungoogled chromium when the other browsers are tied up

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes, as said, Im agreeing, I was just pointing out the sad reality of what the majority is doing (and like it or not, that affects us all).
I'd love a legit third choice (again)!

[–] Findmysec@infosec.pub 1 points 19 hours ago
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] kbal@fedia.io 160 points 1 day ago (3 children)

The discourse about Mozilla is ridiculous, here and most everywhere. You've got people taking every perceived opportunity to attack them for things they do, things they didn't do, and things it's imagined they might've done. And then another crowd of equally determined people doggedly defending them for every idiotic blunder they make, such as this one.

Meanwhile Mozilla itself has nothing substantial to say. This is not the first time a prominent extension has mysteriously gone missing from amo with Mozilla telling us nothing about its role in the incident. @mozilla@mozilla.social needs to be in the discussion giving us a real explanation of what happened, why they got it wrong, and what they're doing to improve things.

[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 34 points 1 day ago

We have collectively agreed that Mozilla is a) not reviewing extentions enough, and b) reviewing too much.

[–] isVeryLoud@lemmy.ca 52 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Correct, this two-sided discourse is due to a massive lack of communication on Mozilla's part, leaving room for speculation.

[–] blurg@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

True in a way. However, there is a rather large collection of speculation on the Internet that is quite an undertaking to correct. And a large population of people and bots willing to speculate. Also, having once been speculated, each speculation takes on a life of its own. If it gets much more substantial, forget Skynet, we're busy creating Specunet and its sidekick Confusionet -- an insidious duo.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] abbenm@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 day ago

The best I can think of is that the explainer language used to justify the extension's removal was just boilerplate language that got copy+pasted here because someone clicked the wrong button. But even that makes a mockery of the review process.

I think "oops clicked wrong button" would be slightly more defensible, but not by much. If they truly rejected the extension for content in it that it does not have, it's hard to see how a human could make that mistake even accidentally. But maybe there's something I'm missing.

[–] featured@lemmygrad.ml 22 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Mozilla.social no longer exists, Mozilla took it down

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] data1701d@startrek.website 43 points 1 day ago

I almost had a panic attack until I realized this was for UBlock Origin Lite rather than the normal, manifest v2 version. Still mad at Mozilla,though.

[–] UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world 40 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

This is more likely someone fucking up and not having a second pair of eyes look at the presumed problem than anything else.

[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 93 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Oh so ublock origin lite. A manifest V3 compatible adblocker for chromium browsers.
The original ublock origin is unaffected

[–] signofzeta@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 19 hours ago

Just curious, how does uBlock Origin Lite compare to regular uBlock Origin? I’ve heard from the Chrome crowd that it’s not as good as blocking ads due to the V3 limitations, but how’s the speed? I might consider it for lower-end hardware if it’s not too compromised.

[–] abbenm@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Firefox will be adopting Manifest V3, but a modded version that enables ad blocking.

[–] turkalino@lemmy.yachts 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

But they’re also not ditching v2, correct?

[–] signofzeta@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 19 hours ago

Firefox implemented Manifest V3, but there are no plans to remove V2.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] boredsquirrel@slrpnk.net 14 points 1 day ago

I dont get why you would run that on Firefox. Users will find the corrent one, all good.

Btw is the uBlock without Origin addon still there?

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 38 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

There's a dozen Firefox extensions that really matter, at any given time. Mozilla has never appeared to give a particular shit about any of them. Paying special attention based on popularity wouldn't be ideal, but for fuck's sake, their passive-aggressive treatment keeps burning out the developers who fuel their ecosystem, and it would take vanishingly little effort to shield their keystone plugins.

If their active neglect had ruined both uBlock and DownThemAll - I'm not sure I'd be using Firefox anymore, and I've been using Firefox since before it was called Firefox. Why the fuck would anyone normal even consider it?

[–] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 day ago (4 children)

DownThemAll is one of those extensions which get installed immediately for me. If I didn't have DownThemAll and uBlock origin, I'd might as well just use edge smh

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

And the author spent a year hassling Mozilla about how killing XUL plugins would make his wildly popular plugin nearly impossible. Did they move one iota to help that? Nope. Did they adopt DTA functionality natively, like they'd absorbed Pocket? Did they fuck. Their mantra for two straight decades has been "just rewrite!" and they cannot imagine why they kept hemorrhaging devs and plugins and users once Chrome slimed its way into everyone's options.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Xiisadaddy@lemmygrad.ml 53 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

That poor dev is just getting so much shit thrown their way constantly having a short temper about it makes sense. They are fighting against an entire industry to make the internet usable for people. I hope everyone who has the means to donates to support the ~~developer~~

Edit: donate to block list maintainers thanks to lemmyvore below for the correction

[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 40 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The dev has not made available any means to donate to him directly. He asks that people donate to the maintainers of the block lists instead.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] vintageballs@feddit.org 67 points 2 days ago (9 children)

Probably due to automatic extension reviews by Mozilla.

Sad that it happened, but at least it doesn't impact the actual uBlock, only the lite version for which I honestly see no purpose in Firefox anyways.

[–] Virkkunen@fedia.io 77 points 2 days ago (4 children)

It was a manual review conducted by an actual person that in the end admitted they were wrong

[–] vintageballs@feddit.org 27 points 2 days ago (10 children)
[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Agreed. Especially considering uBlock origin is pretty much the main reason to use FF at all. They shouldn't be delegating reviews of it to someone who would fuck up this badly.

Assuming this wasn't a "test the waters" kind of thing to determine just how much they were reliant on ublock.

I've been using the main FF build for a while now but I'm wondering if I should start looking at the various fork options.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›