[HN Gopher] Each Firefox download has a unique identifier
___________________________________________________________________
Each Firefox download has a unique identifier
Author : gslin
Score : 173 points
Date : 2022-03-17 19:48 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.ghacks.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.ghacks.net)
| EastSmith wrote:
| Dead browser moves.
| sciurus wrote:
| It's sounds like this is describing the stub attribution feature.
| You can read more details at
|
| https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Stub_Attribution
|
| https://bedrock.readthedocs.io/en/latest/stub-attribution.ht...
| moonshinefe wrote:
| "Principle 4: Individuals' security and privacy on the internet
| are fundamental and must not be treated as optional."[1]
|
| https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
| eventually come to believe it.
| zagrebian wrote:
| How was this principle violated in this case?
| kreeben wrote:
| It gives Mozilla the opportunity to connect my IP address
| with my browser with my Mozilla account. Mozilla needs to bow
| down to the US govt and supply them with this information
| should they have stored it, if the govt feels they need it.
| bayindirh wrote:
| > A quick check of Chrome installers returned identical hashes
| each time.
|
| OK, however, are we completely sure that Chrome installer doesn't
| generate this token on launch and talk with the mothership?
|
| This sounds like whitewashing Chrome just to increase the impact
| of the article or push Chrome or both.
|
| Like Chrome is not tracking me in and out of the internet and in
| the kitchen making tea and noting its brand and reporting to
| Google.
| Tijdreiziger wrote:
| Chrome has the X-Client-Data header:
| https://github.com/bromite/bromite/issues/480
| aftbit wrote:
| Of which there are (supposedly) only 2^13 possible variants:
|
| >Additionally, a subset of low entropy variations are
| included in network requests sent to Google. The combined
| state of these variations is non-identifying, since it is
| based on a 13-bit low entropy value (see above). These are
| transmitted using the "X-Client-Data" HTTP header, which
| contains a list of active variations. On Android, this header
| may include a limited set of external server-side
| experiments, which may affect the Chrome installation. This
| header is used to evaluate the effect on Google servers - for
| example, a networking change may affect YouTube video load
| speed or an Omnibox ranking update may result in more helpful
| Google Search results.
|
| https://www.google.com/chrome/privacy/whitepaper.html#variat.
| ..
| zagrebian wrote:
| > This sounds like whitewashing Chrome just to increase the
| impact of the article
|
| I removed ghacks from my RSS reader years ago because that
| website tends to sensationalize these stories, and I can't
| stand that.
| brimble wrote:
| Considering that ~everyone was tracking device or installation
| IDs before Apple cracked down on it, on iOS, I think it's a
| safe bet that ~everyone is still doing it on desktop, and yeah,
| generating at install time is probably enough for most use
| cases and makes your build and distribution processes simpler.
| SahAssar wrote:
| The way firefox does it can connect the downloading session
| with the running session. You can argue with the value or
| validity of that, but it seems like the chrome installer cant
| do that, which is nice.
|
| As for why it's in the article I think it's valuable to include
| it since if chrome was doing it too it might be seen as just
| "normal", but now it seems even more weird that firefox which
| is supposed to be the privacy alternative is tracking something
| that google is not.
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| >OK, however, are we completely sure that Chrome installer
| doesn't generate this token on launch and talk with the
| mothership?
|
| That wouldn't give any information about where/when you got the
| installer from, which is the topic of this article. Doing so
| would be impossible without embedding information in the exe
| (which would change the hash).
|
| While I agree that it's a little weird to specifically note it
| for Google of all companies, the relevance to the article is
| that Chrome isn't engaging in _this specific type of tracking._
| noobermin wrote:
| Mozilla is fast becoming the bad guy even when they are pitched
| as the "alternative to google (as in chrome)." This is so
| disappointing.
| klntsky wrote:
| > This will allow us to track which installs result from which
| downloads to determine the answers to questions like, "Why do we
| see so many installs per day, but not that many downloads per
| day?"
|
| What value does Mozilla see in being able to do that?
| Barrin92 wrote:
| the reverse case might be more interesting. Many downloads but
| few install follow throughs may suggest the installation
| process is to cumbersome or something along those lines.
| cxr wrote:
| The prevailing belief in the industry is that any problem can
| be solved with more data, dumpster-grade[1] though it may be.
| It's appealing to think that it can be used in lieu of just
| making thoughtful decisions.
|
| 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25016532
| ahmedfromtunis wrote:
| I have no idea what the actual answer is, but one can image
| that they want to understand where are people getting these
| copies of ff if they do not download them themselves.
|
| Why would this be important, again just speculating: to try to
| leverage whatever channel this might uncover to distribute even
| more copies of the browser.
|
| Is this ID thing the best way to do it, though? Probably.
| foerbert wrote:
| Does this even help with that though? Without some further
| means of identifying users, what use is there in saying
| download#123 got installed x times? Even if you add the
| obvious IP information to this, then what? Run GeoIP and say
| "oh, interesting" when they do or do not correlate?
|
| What could they realistically figure out from this that could
| help them figure out how people are getting Firefox?
| noAnswer wrote:
| > but one can image that they want to understand where are
| people getting these copies of ff if they do not download
| them themselves.
|
| These people are getting it obviously from their admins!
| (Like myself. I push Firefox updates to close to 1000 PCs. I
| thought (amongst other things) I'm doing them a favour by
| saving them traffic.) They obviously know that! The real
| reason they are doing this is simply because they started
| collecting data. Now they are hooked and constantly want
| more. That is all there is to it. They already identify each
| individual installation, so someone on the team said: Let's
| identify each download too.
| detaro wrote:
| > _These people are getting it obviously from their
| admins!_
|
| That's one possibility. And even if you pretend it's the
| only one, it's still interesting how that's distributed. Is
| it X admins of 1000-PC orgs, or X*500 people who also
| install it on dads PC?
| xnx wrote:
| This is late-stage Firefox behavior. Like Yahoo in 2012.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| This wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't that the entire brand
| identity of Firefox is Privacy.
|
| It's like discovering there's ham in a vegetarian sandwich. When
| you ask them they look puzzled and say their focus group was
| clear it tastes a lot better that way, besides it's just a little
| bit and the bread is vegetarian and there's way more meat in a
| Big Mac.
| detaro wrote:
| This also wouldn't be so bad if people were capable of nuance
| instead of acting as if everything involving data were the same
| thing. I won't claim Mozilla is in any way perfect, but even as
| someone who is very much pro-privacy it is a little bit
| ridiculous how much people loose their shit about tiny things
| like this and claim there is no difference to what other
| trackers do.
| [deleted]
| Wojakmeme wrote:
| Opt-out after tracking already happend? Sounds GDPR violating to
| me.
| Teandw wrote:
| That's not how GDPR works. This isn't gathering personal data,
| PII or anything similar so wouldn't fall under the scope of
| GDPR.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| IP address can be PII.
|
| What are they hooking the download tracking code to if not
| IPs?
|
| If you sign up for a Mozilla account, providing PII, are you
| saying they then throw away the link between the install and
| original download?
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Remember what happened when Firefox OS died? It was forked into
| KaiOS, which has become a superior product that actually found a
| market.
|
| I will not mourn the death of Mozilla. When it collapses, may it
| be forked and turn into something decent by more competent
| leaders who don't give themselves multimillion dollar salaries
| and make pointless acquisitions.
| soundnote wrote:
| But KaiOS is not a high status Cali techie project.
| [deleted]
| cf141q5325 wrote:
| From the linked bugzilla
| https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1677497#c0
|
| >One note, in case it's not already clear: The download token
| will be available in the telemetry environment, but all web
| session data that it is linked to will NOT ever be included in
| telemetry, it is being deliberately kept in a separate data set,
| and we will be limiting access to the ability to join these data
| sets to a small set of people.
|
| Small set of people? Pls do tell me more
| blibble wrote:
| how does this get through the MS smartscreen and authenticode
| checks?
| dataflow wrote:
| In fact this _is_ how you get past SmartScreen checks. Windows
| freaks out a lot more when it sees the same file being
| downloaded by lots of people, but if you make them all
| different, then it calms down.
| laurent123456 wrote:
| As long as the executable is signed (and it must be), and the
| company well known, Windows should be fine with it.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Package manager installations wouldn't have this problem because
| everybody gets the same copy of the same binary and associated
| files, rights?
| Tijdreiziger wrote:
| Chocolatey and WinGet don't.
|
| Looks like Chocolatey gets the binary from download.mozilla.org
| [1], while WinGet gets it from download-
| installer.cdn.mozilla.net [2] (which looks to be the HTTPS
| repository mentioned in the article, thus being exempt from
| tracking?)
|
| [1] https://community.chocolatey.org/packages/Firefox#files
|
| [2] https://github.com/microsoft/winget-
| pkgs/blob/master/manifes...
| eikenberry wrote:
| This is the difference between a distribution and a simple
| package manager. Linux distributions have a more holistic
| approach to this and enforce it with checksums, signatures,
| reproducible builds, etc. A package manager really only cares
| about managing the packages installation, dependencies, etc.
| Not the integrity of the packages themselves.
| pxeger1 wrote:
| Package manager installations are normally built from source by
| the distribution maintainers, not downloaded as binaries from
| the Mozilla website. So they wouldn't have any "download
| identifier", unique or not, in them.
| Arnavion wrote:
| Yes. Just like with the Audacity kerfuffle some time ago, it's
| not a problem for distro packages, only when you get your
| binaries from upstream.
| politelemon wrote:
| Correct and it's just one of many reasons why checksums and
| signatures are so important in package managers. There's an
| automatic enforcement of privacy and integrity.
| gary_0 wrote:
| Reproducible builds are important as well.
| pxeger1 wrote:
| Is the current Mozilla CEO a plant by Google with the goal of
| driving Mozilla into the ground as much as possible? I don't
| understand how they can keep fucking up their business so badly.
| soundnote wrote:
| "The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic
| organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of
| its enemies."
| wubbert wrote:
| Mozilla does get a lot of their funding from Google...
| peakaboo wrote:
| A download identifier really isn't that bad. Maybe they need to
| actually show some numbers of their downloads to justify
| budgets and other things.
|
| It's not like they are having tracking JavaScript on 80% of the
| worlds Web sites like someone else I know, starting with
| Googl...
| paranoidrobot wrote:
| Download counts dont need you to embed a unique token.
|
| At the most basic level, you can get this by doing a count
| over http logs.
| [deleted]
| brimble wrote:
| How... does that play nicely with signing and notarization on
| Windows and Mac? Asking for a friend :-)
| bradyd wrote:
| From the dltoken_data_review.md [1]:
|
| >> 9) If this data collection is default on, what is the opt-out
| mechanism for users?
|
| >> Standard Telemetry Opt-Out
|
| If you haven't installed it yet, how can you use the standard
| telemetry opt-out?
|
| [1]
| https://bug1677497.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=9195...
| tag2103 wrote:
| Oh look- yet another company that has been discovered to be
| dishonest in their approach to user privacy.
| dmead wrote:
| Why?
| mindslight wrote:
| IMO as market optimization turns the screws ever harder, the
| escape hatch is to head towards source distributions. Outrage
| articles are only necessary because people have come to rely on
| these monolithic binary downloads with their "channels" and
| "installers" and "auto updaters", that are gatekept by
| centralized entities like Mozilla. Whereas if say the source
| tarball used by Nix is engaging in similar shenanigans, that is
| fixable with a self-applied patch rather than needing to convince
| Mozilla to change.
| russdpale wrote:
| The state of web broswers is so pathetic I wish the government
| would step in and limit the amount of out right spying that is
| going on. We have created an entire society which thinks that so
| long as the data is simply 1 degree removed from anonymity, that
| everything is ok.
|
| Privacy is largely a mirage, where are our representatives to
| protect our privacy when the "free" market cannot, and indeed
| will not, do it for us?
| fleddr wrote:
| "Mozilla notes that the opt-out mechanism is the standard
| Telemetry opt-out. How users may opt-out before the installation
| of Firefox is unclear."
|
| As dry as German humor gets :)
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| I hate WebKit and Blink's domination as much as anyone, but
| rather than put up a strong fight, Firefox is _begging_ to lose.
|
| And unfortunately, I can't help but admit that Firefox _deserves_
| to lose (not just from this, but from other terrible decisions
| added up), even if the consequences of a web monoculture are
| terrible.
| noobermin wrote:
| How much of the drama of the last three years can be laid
| squarely at the feet of the CEO who gave themselves a raise
| right when they laid off the MDN staff?
| car_analogy wrote:
| Suppose you want to do something anonymously.
|
| 1. Download installer from Mozilla from your home network -
| Mozilla now has your home IP and installer ID.
|
| 2. Transfer it via USB key to a secure, anonymous computer - one
| not linked to you, on a network not associated with you, such as
| public WiFi.
|
| 3. Install Firefox using that installer on said computer. It
| transmits the installer ID to Mozilla, which matches the one
| given to your home IP, thereby deanonymizing you.
|
| 4. Mozilla receives a warrant for this information, or it is
| hacked, or the organization is infiltrated by a single government
| or corporate spy.
|
| Edit: It gets worse. Suppose a newspaper IT department takes care
| of providing Firefox and other trusted software installers to
| their reporters. Now Mozilla can determine who that newspaper
| helped with IT, such as journalists or sources. Or if you provide
| trusted software to your friends, Mozilla gets part of your
| social graph.
| zagrebian wrote:
| > Mozilla now has your home IP
|
| Since when does Mozilla collect IP addresses?
| car_analogy wrote:
| Any connection to Mozilla's servers reveals your IP to them.
| Given the amount of telemetry in Firefox, it's foolish to
| assume they don't log these IPs. And in either case, they
| could be legally compelled to. But afaik, under US law, they
| cannot be compelled to subvert their software, e.g. to add
| such spyware features if they were not already present.
| zagrebian wrote:
| Why would Mozilla need the IP address? It doesn't seem
| useful for their telemetry.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| They had to serve you the file, for which they needed your
| IP. If they're willing to assign each downloaded client a
| unique ID what are the odds they are _not_ storing the IP
| address associated with that unique ID?
| zagrebian wrote:
| Why would Mozilla need the IP address?
| bobkazamakis wrote:
| ...to respond to requests to their server? you can't
| establish a tcp connection without both ends.
| car_analogy wrote:
| Why would they need installer IDs? The question is if
| they collect it, not if they need it, and all their other
| behavior suggests that they do collect it.
| zagrebian wrote:
| The article explains why: to figure out why there are
| more installs than downloads.
| kreeben wrote:
| Playing your game, why would Mozilla need to know this?
| Zircom wrote:
| They can probably reach the same conclusions about why
| there might be more installs than downloads by thinking
| about it for maybe 5 seconds instead of tracking people.
|
| Easiest explanation off the top of my head, without
| reading the article, would be IT departments including
| Firefox in their base image they use on all their
| standard issue computers, resulting in hundreds and
| possibly thousands of different installs having the same
| download ID. That alone by itself would cause an
| absolutely massive discrepancy between download and
| install numbers. My company includes Firefox in our base
| image and it's on at least 200,000 different laptops and
| desktops, with a handful of different download IDs
| between them depending on when they got issued the
| computer.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| You seem to be unaware that intelligence services have been
| hoovering up internet traffic wholesale for decades, and that
| telcos do it internally as well. Verizon's "supercookie" is a
| great example.
| zagrebian wrote:
| But Mozilla is not a government agency or a telco.
| foerbert wrote:
| Are government agencies somehow restricted to compromise
| telcos but not any other organization?
| systemvoltage wrote:
| I can't remember exactly but Apple also does this with apps.
| "Downloaded from ...".
| dylan604 wrote:
| Isn't that just storing the domain name from which served the
| file? I actually find this useful for those times when I
| can't remember where a file came from but need to use the
| site again. Having that data in a Get Info windo has been
| useful and faster than web searching.
| weikju wrote:
| Except this is an attribute saved on the file locally on your
| system, added by your browser when you download it, not
| something that Apple stores on their servers and tracks.
| Nbox9 wrote:
| What's your point, that someone can attempt to do something
| anonymously and fail?
| car_analogy wrote:
| My point is that they failed only because they were betrayed
| by the free software tool they thought they could trust.
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| No the point is that Mozilla is dishonest about their causes
| and consistently take actions that are hostile to user's
| privacy.
| hosteur wrote:
| How is this not a blatant violation of EU GDPR?
|
| This is involuntary non informed tracking.
| woodruffw wrote:
| My understanding of the GDPR is that it doesn't apply if the
| analytics are fully anonymized, and only partially applies if
| the analytics are pseudonymous[1]. It's exceedingly likely that
| one of these cases applies, since the ID in question is tied to
| a single Mozilla _installation_ , not individual user or even
| browser profile.
|
| [1]: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/data-protection/guidance-staff-
| student...
| kbelder wrote:
| Firefox users who prefer to download the browser without the
| unique identifier may do so in the following two ways:
| Download the Firefox installer from Mozilla's HTTPS repository
| (formerly the FTP repository). Download Firefox from third-
| party download sites that host the installer, e.g., from
| Softonic.
|
| It's nuts and another indication Mozilla doesn't understand the
| reason they exist, but it's not that hard to get around... if
| you're one of the 0.1% that hears about this.
| [deleted]
| freediver wrote:
| Zero telemetry is the only way to go for a modern browser with a
| sense of decency for the web and the users.
|
| I invite everyone on a Mac to try and support Orion browser -
| zero telemetry by default.
| layer8 wrote:
| > This will allow us to [...] answer questions like, "Why do we
| see so many installs per day, but not that many downloads per
| day?"
|
| That's really not something they should spent much time puzzling
| over, much less implement tracking IDs for.
| knodi wrote:
| wtf Mozilla, why are you making me stop using you?
| seba_dos1 wrote:
| As if there was any serious alternative that wasn't much worse.
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| I mean if they both are going off the deep end for tracking
| chrome is faster and a ton of developers seem to only care if
| it works on chrome....
| seba_dos1 wrote:
| Well, Firefox' tracking is usually meant for determining
| things like where did the installer came from and
| collecting feature usage data, while Google's is all about
| building marketing profiles to sell targeted ads. You
| decide how bad each of them is.
| [deleted]
| idonotknowwhy wrote:
| So downloading from the arch Linux repo via pacman, I don't have
| a unique ID?
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| No, but unless you go tweak a bunch of things you are still
| sending your information to Mozilla. Also, they've had a few
| "convenient" bugs that reverted privacy settings in the past.
| gandalfff wrote:
| I don't really understand telemetry. How is Google Analytics
| helping them to improve the browser? Is it to see which features
| are actually being used?
| brimble wrote:
| Imagine you could stick a camera over your users' shoulders,
| mostly without them knowing you're doing it, instead of doing
| actual user research.
|
| That's what the stuff's for. Some of the tools for these things
| record entire sessions, including mouse movements. It's creepy
| as hell and even the tamest of "telemetry" 100% would have
| gotten something classed, unambiguously, as spyware, in the
| distant past of ~15-20 years ago.
| emerged wrote:
| They ignore their users in all other aspects so it seems
| unlikely to be driven by that.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| How much R&D do you think Firefox squandered on making a custom
| installer generator for every download and being unable to cache
| the files on a cheap CDN?
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Not much? I did exactly this when I worked on a really popular
| P2P file sharing client (at one point estimated to be installed
| on >15% of all PCs worldwide). It even improved our actual
| installs, but that is probably about just using an ultralight
| weight installer rather than having a tracking ID integrated
| into it. It literally took me a week. Granted, things were
| really fast and loose back then. It would probably take me 2
| years and a team of engineers to do a similar thing at my
| current FANG job.
| ordu wrote:
| They seem to be trying to gather a lot of telemetry to measure
| how they can boost popularity of Firefox. I wonder did they tried
| to measure how the measurement itself influences popularity?
| Social measurements are like quantum ones, they change reality.
|
| There was a funny story of a Hawthorn Experiment[1], which tried
| to find ways to boost productivity but at the end managed to
| state just that the very attempt to conduct an experiment boosts
| productivity. It seems to me that with Mozilla the effect has a
| opposite sign and any attempt to measure decreases the target
| variables of decision making. And therefore they need to find
| ways to measure "non-invasively", not to measure every little
| thing they can measure.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect
| delusional wrote:
| I think the physical analogy you're thinking about is "the
| observer effect"[1]. And it's actually a pretty much universal
| problem in physics, not just quantum mechanics.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
| threatripper wrote:
| Maybe they just kind of forgot how to make good software and
| now desperately try to recreate that magic using loads of
| metrics and social experiments leading to loads of competing
| interpretations and infighting.
| causality0 wrote:
| Well they've spent a decade trying the "be more like Chrome"
| method. I suggest they try the "be more like Firefox from when
| Firefox was successful" method.
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| Firefox was successful when it was the alternative, better,
| option to the dominant Internet Explorer. Now the dominant
| browser is Chrom(e|ium). The two scenarios are _very_
| different.
| causality0 wrote:
| Precisely. Firefox is never going to defeat Chrome in the
| "being Chrome" category. If it wants to exist as more than
| a tool for Google to avoid antitrust lawsuits, it can't
| keep playing that game. It has to differentiate. Privacy is
| not differentiation because it's invisible and HN
| commentators are 90% of the people who care about it. I
| want the sense of power back. I want the feeling that
| Firefox gave me a decade ago that my browser behaved
| _exactly_ the way I wanted it to and _nothing_ about it
| ticked me off because if I didn 't like it I could just
| change it.
|
| Nowadays using Firefox feels more like holding a political
| demonstration in an empty room than using the finely-tuned
| instrument I once had.
| function_seven wrote:
| > _Nowadays using Firefox feels more like holding a
| political demonstration in an empty room than using the
| finely-tuned instrument I once had._
|
| I can't think of better words to describe my feeling as a
| Firefox holdout. It's still my default browser, and the
| one I use for 97% of my work. Mozilla is breaking my
| heart with their floundering. Like a fantasy author who
| keeps getting mired in side quests and can never get back
| to the main plot.
|
| Stop with the goofy marketing tie ins, the hostile
| telemetry choices, the side products like Pocket and VPN,
| and just make a fucking browser that doesn't attempt to
| hide complexity from the user. Focus on that, do yearly
| fundraising like Wikipedia does, and be content.
| rurp wrote:
| > They seem to be trying to gather a lot of telemetry to
| measure how they can boost popularity of Firefox.
|
| This might sound like a crazy idea, but they could always try
| listening to users! Everytime I get annoyed by something in
| Firefox and try to find a fix for it, I find a _lot_ of people
| with the same issue across HN, Reddit, the Mozilla forums, etc.
| There is rarely any sign that a decision maker from Mozilla
| cares one bit. But rather than listening to the many vocal
| complaints, suggestions, and other copious public feedback...
| they add a unique download identifier. Ok then.
|
| I really, really hope that Mozilla gets new management before
| it's too late (if it's not already).
| estaseuropano wrote:
| That seems like a very harsh interpretation. Very few people
| will care whether their specific download is tracked. I do
| honestly wonder how that adds vakuento Mozilla, but no one will
| _not_ use Firefox due to this- especially as every single
| alternative is much worse than Firefox on such metrics.
| rkagerer wrote:
| How long has it been that way?
| cf141q5325 wrote:
| https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1677497 Its from a
| year ago
| lostgame wrote:
| Okay, first the stupid fucking 'Turning Red' advertisement that
| dared to call itself 'adorable', and now this?
|
| Seriously, does FireFox hate itself, or just hates it's dwindling
| but loyal user base?
|
| We used to use Firefox because they _didn't_ do shit like this.
|
| I actually deleted Firefox after about 15 years of loyal use
| after the 'Turning Red' incident. Glad to hear I made the right
| call.
|
| I've been using Safari and have no regrets.
|
| Goodbye, Firefox. Good riddance, if this is how you'll behave.
|
| It's sad to watch the dream of a mainstream open-source browser
| that wasn't evil vanish.
|
| We will need something else, but I don't see huge potential
| adoption for anything.
|
| It was hard enough to get people to swap browsers in the 00's,
| it's gonna be way harder with each platform pushing its own pre-
| installed browser.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-17 23:00 UTC)