Post 1815807 by Shamar@mastodon.social
(DIR) More posts by Shamar@mastodon.social
(DIR) Post #1795681 by peter@toot.cafe
2018-12-07T08:23:52Z
2 likes, 3 repeats
Firefox is now more important, isolated and vulnerable. Some suggested ways we can support it:• Set it as your default browser. And if you're back home with family over Christmas, suggest/set as their default too.• When you hear web devs say "can't everyone just use Chrome", please challenge it.• Contribute to Mozilla-led projects, e.g. MDN Docs: https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2018/05/contributing-mdn-webdocs/• Donate to Mozilla if you can: https://donate.mozilla.org
(DIR) Post #1796476 by andredo@chaos.social
2018-12-07T09:05:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@peter • FF slow af. • My FF is randomly crashing, at least twice a day. Even if it not my default Browser and it's idling in the background.• 16GB RAM isn't enough for more than 20 tabs• so many years and nothing has changed • pocket - why?• build in tracking (Cliqz GmbH)• unbelievable slow on Android• I don't recommend FF any more
(DIR) Post #1797690 by Sabretooth@social.tchncs.de
2018-12-07T10:08:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@peter How many people do we need to donate in order to make Mozilla independent from donations of search engines? I don't even think, if the number of donors match the money of them, that something would change.
(DIR) Post #1800005 by xxbc@mstdn.io
2018-12-07T12:49:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@peter @kropot but FF still mostly sucks and is a drain on CPU and makes tons of shitty product decisions that make no sense at all
(DIR) Post #1800333 by fresheyeball@functional.cafe
2018-12-07T13:11:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@peter why? Seriously why? Chromium is open source, if Firefox can't compete they deserve to fail.
(DIR) Post #1805130 by nolan@toot.cafe
2018-12-07T16:49:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@peter MDN is a cross-vendor effort now, although yeah I think Mozilla still commits the most resources.
(DIR) Post #1810052 by peter@toot.cafe
2018-12-07T20:06:58Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
I was just trying to suggest some positive things we can do to help the web stay healthy. But seems like some folks are confused & angry, so I'll add: the fact Chromium is open source doesn't make it awesome if every single browser used it. Open source != open governance. If you set the direction of a browser engine monoculture, you set the direction of the web. If you think other orgs, like Mozilla, should retain a say too, then maybe look for ways to help them.
(DIR) Post #1810638 by suetanvil@mastodon.technology
2018-12-07T20:23:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@peter Neither Chrome nor Firefox are really open-source in the traditional way. They are the products of single large organizations who control their directions, not a grassroots team the way (eg) Linux is.Both are far too complex and too much of a security hole to let a low-budget third party fork them.That being said, Mozilla is a nonprofit with a track record of caring about user privacy while Google makes money from ads, so I know who I trust more.
(DIR) Post #1810924 by djsumdog@hitchhiker.social
2018-12-07T20:30:24Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@peter Android (ASOP) is technically open source, but it requires so much Google bloatware to make the majority of the apps work. Trying to go outside of that ecosystem is possible, but it requires a lot of open-source stubs/tools/replacements and it's complex for people who aren't developers. We're far away from the FOSS world a lot of devs envisioned in the late 90s.
(DIR) Post #1811111 by peter@toot.cafe
2018-12-07T20:34:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
For those who've said to me "it's just a rendering engine, what does it matter? Surely it's better if all browsers render the same..." Blink is the rendering engine, but the Chromium project as a whole is a lot more than just that. It includes, for example, support for Web APIs. Google tends to push ahead with introducing those quickest. That can be good in many cases, but also other browser vendors being able to push back, e.g. for privacy concerns, is healthy too
(DIR) Post #1811210 by BartG95@mastodon.host
2018-12-07T20:37:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@peter If I may draw a conclusion: not the fact that chromium is used is bad, but that only G👀gle actually controls chromium is the bad thing.
(DIR) Post #1811706 by fabricedesre@mamot.fr
2018-12-07T20:54:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@peter Sure, but Mozilla has its fair share of work to do here. It's governance is as tightly controlled as blink's one.There is a reason no one else uses gecko...
(DIR) Post #1811830 by peter@toot.cafe
2018-12-07T21:00:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@BartG95 Yeah I mean, other contributors have some say and I expect Microsoft will be a big contributor & have a relatively big say, but Google will surely retain most control overall. My points were not really so much about Google as such (knowing some people from the Chrome team, I know lots have good intentions) but about the risks of a browser monoculture (and many of those Chrome folks would agree; they talk about the importance of browser diversity too).
(DIR) Post #1815806 by callahad@wandering.shop
2018-12-07T23:04:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@BartG95 @peter Implementation monoculture can still be an issue, even under open governance. It constrains your perspective and creates implicit dependencies on the quirks of that specific codebase.E.g., would we have thought to build Linux containers as we have, without first seeing BSD jails?
(DIR) Post #1815807 by Shamar@mastodon.social
2018-12-07T23:34:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@callahad @BartG95 @peter There are more #browsers than #Firefox and #Chromium and some deserve way more trust and support than #Mozilla.You've grown the #Web complexity so much in your #WHATWG #LivingStandards that you don't even try to mitigate the wide class of attacks that exploit it.But you don't dare to inform Firefox's users about them, do you?Guess what? You raising the bar so high that soon you won't pass it anymore.https://rain-1.github.io/in-browser-localhostdiscovery.html
(DIR) Post #1815808 by 361.xj9@social.sunshinegardens.org
2018-12-07T23:36:17.199053Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@Shamar @peter @BartG95 @callahad anything more complex than dillo is overkill for a document browser imo
(DIR) Post #1815986 by roka@pl.smuglo.li
2018-12-07T23:40:55.398596Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@xj9 @Shamar @peter @BartG95 @callahad dillo is prone to bloating memory by spawning way too many child processes. i had it happen to me several times, mostly when using https pages.basically install lynx
(DIR) Post #1816617 by 361.xj9@social.sunshinegardens.org
2018-12-07T23:59:45.933739Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@roka @Shamar @peter @BartG95 @callahad i'm down with lynxpretty hypertext is fine, but once you get into web app territory i'm out
(DIR) Post #1820129 by dualhammers@sunbeam.city
2018-12-08T01:54:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@peter I wish I had the tools and ability to contribute to it the features I'd need. Right now I am using Vivaldi and I find it far more functional for me than Firefox.Ethics running up against pragmatism
(DIR) Post #1820326 by coy@niu.moe
2018-12-08T02:02:29Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@peter I'd switch to any browser that could replicate what Firefox and its derivatives or Chrome and its derivatives did, which is basically every other browser now. I can't think of a single major browser out there besides Firefox-derivs that didn't bite the Google bullet. Firefox and Chrome both spy on their users in *ridiculous amounts and myriad ways*, and I'm absolutely positive all of their derivatives do the same. What's really the alternative to getting spied on? Firefox still does it.
(DIR) Post #1820341 by rimugu@mastodon.social
2018-12-08T02:03:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@peter why donate to the org that oust their CEO because he donated to a non lefty cause and was not a SJW?
(DIR) Post #1821621 by xxbc@mstdn.io
2018-12-08T03:17:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@peter do we really seem confused to you?
(DIR) Post #1824797 by buoyantair@social.sunshinegardens.org
2018-12-08T06:16:25.997251Z
0 likes, 2 repeats
@xj9So much so that if you actually go to a website built with a modern frontend librarg like react or vuejs and your browser has noscript youre not.going to see ANYTHING and that sucks@roka @Shamar @peter @BartG95 @callahad
(DIR) Post #1827679 by oakreef@mastodon.social
2018-12-08T09:55:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@peter the worrying thing is no matter how much money we donate they're getting more from google :/
(DIR) Post #1831367 by gemlog@mastodonten.de
2018-12-08T13:46:02Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@peter @vilbi I'm afraid we'll never be able to donate enough to overcome GOOG's influence over the project - and the reason I've come to believe they've made so many wrong-headed decisions of late.After using FF since early 2005 I reluctantly tried to escape to palemoon only to come crawling back a month or two later.These days (literally it's been only days!) I'm enjoying the latest Vivaldi and have high hopes for it and the direction of the project.Mozilla has lost its way I'm afraid.
(DIR) Post #1836795 by caffeine@mastodon.technology
2018-12-08T18:00:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@peter Chromium being open source also means people and companies can influence it's development and the direction it takes. So *imho* this situation can't be compared to the past were a closed source browser (IE) dominated the Web.
(DIR) Post #1840938 by smeg@assortedflotsam.com
2018-12-08T21:25:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@peter Switch your search to DuckDuckGo
(DIR) Post #1841870 by peter@toot.cafe
2018-12-08T22:08:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@smeg I already use it 🙄
(DIR) Post #1843062 by bob@soc.freedombone.net
2018-12-08T06:50:54.587669Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@peter People also need to be aware of Firefox's default on telemetry, which they don't inform the user about and which can't be fully turned off from the preferences. This is a really bad practice which undermines their claims about privacy.
(DIR) Post #1843063 by rugk@social.wiuwiu.de
2018-12-08T22:36:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bob @peter they do inform. In the past they had some bar, now they open the privacy policy in a new tab after your first startup.Also the telemetry they connect is often really useful (for development for sure, but also for yourself. You can view it at about:telemetry IIRC. Also it's just some things like browser startup time, installed add-ons etc. Your history is never collected or so.Nevertheless, you can disable it of course.
(DIR) Post #1843064 by bob@soc.freedombone.net
2018-12-08T22:44:00.393358Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rugk @peter Really useful to whom, I wonder?The data they collect is a fingerprint. The people who are paying for it are Google.Just startup time.Just installed addons.Just cachedClientID.Combined, a unique signature.How aware of this is the Firefox user? Not at all in nearly every case. And yet the siren song about privacy continues.Until Mozilla can get its rhetoric and its software into some semblance of orderliness this will always look deeply suspicious.
(DIR) Post #1843065 by maiyannah@community.highlandarrow.com
2018-12-08T22:51:03+00:00
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bob @peter @rugk Suspicious implies that we don't know this is a threat. So let me state this clearly, without equivocation: Mozilla is a threat. It is a bad actor.
(DIR) Post #1843462 by jason@thesocialmedia.feedbackloo.pw
2018-12-08T23:04:59.918687Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bobimo Neither Chrome or Mozilla are worth using, both collect creepy amounts of data in different but equally as invasive ways, Mozilla are probably worse as they obsfuscate behind the pro privacy curtain and maintain complex partner data sharing agreementsI have found that the best compromise for me is qtwebengine based browsers (chromium based with google stuff removed) like Qutebrowser and FalkonWhat we really need is a new renderer or perhaps somthing new based on Netsurf (or dillo.....)@rugk @peter
(DIR) Post #1844295 by bob@soc.freedombone.net
2018-12-08T23:16:24.857506Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@maiyannah @peter @rugk Well I'm not so sure, but in the current technological milieu it's extraordinarily unlikely that Mozilla are the only ones collecting the fingerprint data being conveniently sent upon browser startup to a single server. This kind of information has all the usual nefarious tracking potential, especially when combined with other information. We've only just had the story, email by sordid email, of how Facebook sold access to user accounts despite denying that for years and I have to wonder whether something similar applies with Firefox.Of course I have no proof. But the landscape of browsers is in a sorry condition. There are alternatives to Chromium and Firefox, but usually with not as much functionality.
(DIR) Post #1844296 by maiyannah@community.highlandarrow.com
2018-12-08T23:34:36+00:00
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bob @peter @rugk I am. They are collecting a very obvious fingerprint, they are selling it to the highest bidder, and they are doing it all under the guise of being morally superior. This is a bad actor. Plain and simple.
(DIR) Post #1850936 by ericbuijs@fosstodon.org
2018-12-09T06:32:33Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@coy @peter use GNU IceCat instead.
(DIR) Post #1851067 by coy@niu.moe
2018-12-09T06:42:49Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@ericbuijs @peter Is it truly stripped of tracking? happy to try it and see for myself
(DIR) Post #1857495 by Blort@social.tchncs.de
2018-12-09T14:48:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@peter also, when you hear people gripe about any of the more questionable things Mozilla has done (*cough* CloudFlare DNS), remind them that yes, you can challenge Mozilla on that stuff without throwing out the baby with the bathwater by moving to a 100% surveillance capitalism product like Chrome (and yes, remember, Chromium helps support the development of Chrome, open source, or not).
(DIR) Post #1859680 by rugk@social.wiuwiu.de
2018-12-09T10:34:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@maiyannah @peter @bob don't invent stuff here. Obviously they are not selling it.Actually the aggregate it (so it's actually no fingerprint) and publicize it. Here e.g.: https://data.firefox.com/ and https://telemetry.mozilla.org/Give links for your claims taken out of nowhere. Google may do this, Mozilla does not. Just ask yourself: Did you ever see such a transparent report/statistics tool of the data Google collected?
(DIR) Post #1859681 by bob@soc.freedombone.net
2018-12-09T10:51:19.814922Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rugk @peter @maiyannah The exact nature of the business relationship between Google and Mozilla is opaque, but from the financial statement we can assume that Google gets what it wants out of the deal.One of the ungst-inducing aspects of the contemporary browser scene is that Google and Mozilla are not all that independent. If Google cut off the funding then Mozilla would presumably be history, or riding only on donations.If Mozilla wants to be taken seriously when they talk about privacy then there needs to be a divorce between them and Google.
(DIR) Post #1859682 by rugk@social.wiuwiu.de
2018-12-09T10:53:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bob @maiyannah @peter "If Google cut off the funding then Mozilla would presumably be history, or riding only on donations."That is obviously wrong as it had been like this in the past. You maybe did not saw the toot, but here I've explained it in detail: https://social.tchncs.de/@z428/101210013175249055(see replies)
(DIR) Post #1859683 by bob@soc.freedombone.net
2018-12-09T11:06:56.394400Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rugk @peter @maiyannahFrom the 2017 financial statement:"Mozilla receives royalty income from contracts with various search engine and information providers. Revenue from these contracts is determined by the search and information providers based upon *end user activity* or as contractually agreed to."From https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2017/"Today, the majority of Mozilla Corporation revenue is generated from global browser search partnerships, including the *deal negotiated with Google* in 2017 following Mozilla’s termination of its search agreement with Yahoo/Oath which required ongoing payments to Mozilla that remain the subject of litigation. "All the evidence indicates that there is a current business deal between Google and Mozilla, and that this is in fact where they obtain the majority of their revenue (in their own words).
(DIR) Post #1859684 by rugk@social.wiuwiu.de
2018-12-09T11:22:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bob @maiyannah @peter do you care to read my toots?1. Yes, currently there is. Since 2017 as they said. From 2014-2017 there was not. They only had a Yahoo deal there.2. Even today, they not only quote Google as a major source of income, but also Yahoo.3. And obviously, yes, search engines in general are the major income.But even if Google would go away, I guess it is not hard to find another search engine…
(DIR) Post #1859685 by bob@soc.freedombone.net
2018-12-09T11:36:27.917585Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@rugk @peter @maiyannah Maybe so, but the trade in this "end user activity" would presumably remain. Yahoo also has a checkered history with regard to letter agencies.