Except I just heard from one of the main Seamonkey folks that they’re going to be including the exact same code in Seamonkey.
First, mozilla will NOT endorse or recommend an EME plugin, that will be recommended by the site , much as it is done NOW.
Second, Mozilla built their entire previous plugin architecture at the beck and call of Adobe because Mozilla wanted to include PDF reading capabilities of Adobe’s in the web browser. It’s only now much later that they use a more open source solution, but remember that the ENTIRE NPAPI setup that delivers your DRM now was created by Adobe and implemented by Mozilla so vendors can use non-free software.
All Mozilla is doing is changing how they run these plugins to what google chrome , microsoft IE, and Macintosh Safari have changed to years ago. Even Chromium is implementing this methodology. That Firefox is simply the last in the list doesn’t mean Mozilla capitulated, in fact Firefox has long trailed the world when it came to user privacy and respect running third party code. If you think previous Mozilla was free, and future Mozilla is not, because of what third party code capabilities are now possible (or will be), you’re lying to yourself and have been deluding yourself since the invention of NPAPI by Adobe/Mozilla.
2 Likes
Honestly I assume the bad faith because the redesign has left half the posts on the front page with similar style headlines and it is becoming increasingly hard to tell what is sponsored , what is not sponsored, and what is content. Cory’s personal website and Guardian blogs have a summary on the page about it. Also, the headlines chosen for those sites are not nearly as attention getting as the front page here.
Even his post on the Guardian has a different tone than here AND HE LINKS TO IT from here.
But that aside, I’m going to wait. I already know multiple people who are going to excise the code completely. Count on it not being present in quite a few linux distributions.
2 Likes
I have a TV and cable. Seems to work fine.
That’s what I meant with my short post above, but you described it better than me. What bugged me for a while now is that FF is often regarded as the safest browser, because it’s open source. But it’s barely useable without add-on’s and extensions for a lot of websites. Mozilla’s own website list 1000’s of these plugins that are not in any way controlled, may not be programmed properly and sometimes contain spyware and malware. Therefore my call for sandboxing all of these add-on’s, extensions, plugins rather than leaving the unaware user in a bubble of false security that is actually undermined by uncontrolled 3rd party software.
FWIW so do I.
I’m just so thoroughly disgusted that everything gets ironized for my own protection.
No it doesn’t. You’re confusing plugins, like Flash and Silverlight, for extensions, which are written in Javascript and which (if you try) can be opened and examined since the source is right there. Mozilla’s sites (I assume you mean the addons site) is a site of extensions, not plugins. These add features that some users want. One of the major selling points of Firefox, historically, is that you can do this. It is a feature, not a bug, as you imply.
1 Like
Well, Google and Apple and Microsoft are predatory corporations who can’t be expected to give a damn about the open internet in the first place, except as it affects their bottom line. Mozilla could and should be expected to be held to a higher standard, and might in fact have made a real difference in the fight against EME. But chose not to.
Since the issue is not easy and Mozilla has in fact done a lot to do this horrible thing the right way, as Cory has noted, maybe we should just agree to disagree on the final conclusion. But I do disagree.
Well, in that case why all the hand-wringing at Mozilla over this if all they’re doing is updating their plugin architecture? Maybe because by supporting EME that’s not all they’re doing.
I’ll just add one thing: It is possible to react to that kind of pressure by taking a stand, by saying “NO, I will not be a party to this” and take whatever costs as part of the process. Caving while wringing your hands is not the only option. That’s how people have changed the world over and over, by taking stands and not budging. It is also what Cory is actively doing with regard to DRM. And it is what Mozilla should be doing. The option of growing a spine and taking a stand is open to corporations and NGOs too, not only to individuals.
1 Like
Actually they do review how the extensions are written… And they re-review every extension with every update (or at least did when I last cared). I believe it is largely an automated process with red-flags pulling in a human reviewer.
For some reason, the extension I wrote would keep tripping the red flag alert and I’d have to explain why it was coded the way it was with every new FF release. Since the released seemed to be happening constantly (3 years ago we were on version 5, now we are on version 29), I had to have these back and forth conversations constantly. I finally just gave up and abandoned maintaining the extension.
Because people are drama queens.
1 Like
Because Mozilla updates plugin architecture doesn’t get those fabulous fabulous ad-impressions?
They’ve clearly said all they’re doing, you can clearly follow the instructions here:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Simple_Firefox_build
And see on a day by day, hour by hour, minute by minute basis EXACTLY what they’re doing.
You can contribute and push and pull to your heart’s content following their bug base and patch rules.
There is literally NOTHING in the development of their browser that is done in secret, and if there WERE, you can STILL build your own version from source without whatever secret parts offend you. And other people HAVE and continue to do so with zero retribution or issues from Mozilla. (Palemoon, etc).
So no, I don’t know why people buy into this factual dishonestly that is going around now, I really don’t.
Now, if they turn off the build servers, or the source control, or you start seeing libraries that aren’t built or available to you when you build YOUR firefox personally… then I can understand calling them out for “other things they might be doing”, but they are literally one of the only companies in the world who hash out most of their dirty laundry in public.
And they did so with this, too, which is another problem I have, with people acting like this whole god-damned decision was made in secret. It wasn’t. It was yelled about and talked about and grumbled about for MONTHS all over the web and all over MDN and the Mozilla landscape. Over and over and over. They invited people in to talk about it. They asked advice from all over. Vocally. Vividly. And to this day they STILL are involved with discussions on it all over the place.
I’m just really, really tired of people just posting lies that are so easily called out as lies about one of the few good places left. And I cannot fathom what the motives are for doing that.
2 Likes
Unfortunately, probably true. Besides, it gives the “free software only” people a bully pulpit as well.
1 Like
Technically, we fix security issues in secret (until we ship them live) and then we open up the bugs to the public after it has been available for at least six weeks (a full release cycle) to make sure people pick up the fixed versions first.
2 Likes
Well, fair enough, but that’s a security/0-day issue. When you are done fixing them, you DO publish the fixes and little hg diffs can show what changed and who changed it, and it all links in to your bug reporting, and people can get on that team if they’re trusted enough/work for moz like you, etc.
1 Like
Mozilla’s CEO is a drama queen?
Quoth he from the “pragmatism rules” bully pulpit. 
Mozilla’s CEO has detailed in like, 3 blog posts, exactly what this is. A plugin thing.
How people interpret it is beyond his control.
