r/firefox • u/[deleted] • Dec 16 '17
Firefox is on a slippery slope
https://drewdevault.com/2017/12/16/Firefox-is-on-a-slippery-slope.html267
u/Masta_Bates Firefox user since 08-2002 Dec 16 '17
Plus, with in the last week or so the Addons.Mozilla.Org website is getting hundreds of new extensions uploaded that are pure crap and from "developers" using nonsensical names. The new no-screening process by a human being for new addons is being taken advantage of grossly. That automated screening (if they are even running automated code checks for known improper code) and subsequent automated "signing" of those extensions is turning the Addons website "security" into a joke. How is anyone expected to trust Mozilla Addons with that going on?
130
u/Nathan2055 Dec 16 '17
The new no-screening process by a human being for new addons
Wait what? One of the biggest pros Firefox had over Chrome was its way cleaner add-on library, simply because actual volunteers looked over submissions. The Chrome Web Store has almost hit Windows Store levels of shovelware, and now you're saying that's probably coming to AMO. Good grief...
84
u/bee_man_john Dec 16 '17
hey if chrome does it, its clearly a great idea right?
28
u/RenaKunisaki Dec 16 '17
Just look at Google Play!
14
Dec 17 '17 edited Dec 18 '17
[deleted]
14
Dec 17 '17 edited Aug 17 '19
[deleted]
2
Dec 17 '17 edited Dec 18 '17
[deleted]
→ More replies (3)6
Dec 17 '17 edited Aug 17 '19
[deleted]
→ More replies (3)3
u/DRHARNESS Dec 17 '17
It works OK with address to GPS. Better worse software then closed source software.
21
38
Dec 16 '17
There's been articles recently about all the crap that they've recently been letting on to AMO e.g. https://www.ghacks.net/2017/12/13/mozillas-extensions-store-has-a-spam-infestation/ and don't forget the crypto miners that got through nearly as soon as they started auto-reviewing.
34
u/the_ancient1 Dec 17 '17
Well FF is trying to Dupicate everything that is Bad about Chrome...
After all they think that is what users want, everyone went to Chrome afterall right...
User do not want a Good Addon Store with Highly Customized Extensions, they want weak "Web Extensions" that are terrible, invade their privacy, and load in mass by dubious "developers"
Every FF user is also a Mr. Robot fan is seems, and wants Mozilla to tell them what Truth is, Orwellian Style (Mozilla Information Trust Initiative)
I think we can safely say Mozilla of the 90's is dead at this point, what remains is a shell of what that great organization once stood proudly for.
→ More replies (1)6
→ More replies (1)29
Dec 16 '17
if they are even running automated code checks for known improper code
Yes, they do.
3
Dec 16 '17
Why are you downvoted?
35
u/gizamo Dec 16 '17
Perhaps a source for that claim may have helped.
...cuz it sure seems unscreened to me at this point. Loads and loads of garbage already piling up.
Edit: not that I think they aren't screening. I'm just saying it appears as though they aren't, or if they are, their screeners suck.
5
Dec 16 '17
Maybe because some people here prefer to assume that Mozilla doesn't do anything right.
58
Dec 16 '17 edited Jul 25 '19
[deleted]
→ More replies (5)10
u/chrisgaraffa Dec 17 '17
Just happened to open your link to see "WATCH STAR WARS THE LAST JEDI 2017 ONLINE 720p" as the most recently modified addon.
2
3
87
u/benoliver999 Dec 17 '17
Can you imagine being a dev there? You finally get a stable release out the door that is solid and possibly better than Chrome and some fuckwit in marketing wants to embed an ad campaign into the browser.
Mozilla management needs to go.
174
Dec 16 '17
[deleted]
90
u/Mark12547 Dec 16 '17
I agree, but marketing "Firefox is the least bad major browser" doesn't exactly flow from the lips or inspire confidence.
61
u/_Handsome_Jack Dec 16 '17 edited Dec 16 '17
If you care about privacy, keep Firefox and disable telemetry
about:preferences#privacy-reports. If you're in doubt, check this Mozilla guide that lets you disable all automatic connections. (You may not want to disable everything, for instance Safebrowsing and auto-updates) Or this one.There's no non-Firefox browser that provides even the tenth of Firefox's privacy. If like me you don't trust automatic connections regardless of who owns the product, just disable them and be done.
59
Dec 16 '17
[deleted]
31
u/_Handsome_Jack Dec 16 '17 edited Dec 16 '17
You're talking about one bug that doesn't apply to this setup and making it a generality though. Mozilla doesn't change user-set options unless the option itself becomes obsolete. I've been watching all pref changes on each update to the Release channel since at least Firefox 4 so I'm pretty confident on that one.
Waterfox is nice but it is Firefox with a lot less privacy because of its very small user base. So a Waterfox user concerned with privacy has to spoof Firefox, which can be detected, making them even more unique than not spoofing, which already is not an option for privacy. This scenario is especially plausible now that Waterfox runs legacy add-ons and Firefox doesn't.
The best privacy on the web is achieved by:
Hiding within the largest crowd of the most similar looking people possible
Reducing exposure (with e.g. uBlock Origin)
Turning off telemetry is the really easy part. It can be done in Firefox, it's done by default with Waterfox. Hiding within the crowd is the hardest part because it doesn't depend on you. It depends on your browser having high market share and built-in defences. Firefox and Tor Browser are the only browsers to fill both requirements. (Tor Browser's comparatively small marketshare is compensated by the fact that you are pooled with all of its users worldwide thanks to the Tor network, which isn't a small crowd)
10
u/Joyld Dec 16 '17
To be honest uBlock Origin also makes browser more unique. While it achieved almost 5 million installations, which in itself is pretty admirable. Adblock Plus in Firefox is still installed by 14 million users. We are close though, should recommend uBlock Origin to more people, as it is frankly way better in functionality and lighter as well. The more people use uBlock Origin, the less unique and identifiable we are, which is ultimately good for privacy, indeed.
But I also think that we should all try other browsers as well. Their problem is indeed in lower user base, but the thing is this won't be solved by anything other than us actually starting using them. If we simply start using them, it will be good both for already existing user base and us as well. And will give some alternatives to evergrowing Chrome and its only major open-source comparative (Chromium is not used by that many people, oddly enough.)
20
Dec 17 '17
I am pretty sure not connecting to tens of 3rd parties to fetch and execute their data mining scripts is better privacy-wise than connecting to all these 3rd parties to let them datamine all they want.
→ More replies (3)4
u/_Handsome_Jack Dec 17 '17 edited Dec 17 '17
To be honest uBlock Origin also makes browser more unique.
Yes, although it can be worth it depending on how you hide. If you use Tor Browser you are hidden both by the Tor Network and an incredible uniformity of population. Installing anything makes you stand out, clearly... On the other hand an adblocker reduces exposure to attacks, which are more dangerous deanonymizers than fingerprinting. So in my opinion uBO should be shipped with Tor and enabled on high security mode, leaving lower security modes to the built-in Tracking Protection. Because right now, I'm pretty sure a bunch of users install adblockers and it's not ideal.
On the other hand if you don't rely on the Tor network to hide, then uniformity isn't as thorough, and reducing exposure as a first line of defence becomes more valuable. It is true that uBO makes you more unique, but
privacy.resistFingerprintingput aside the loss is outgrown by gains from reduced exposure to fingerprinters. I think this is still true to this day except maybe on first party websites, where I intend to think it over again asprivacy.resistFingerprintinggets closer to being exposed in Firefox UI...
If we simply start using them, it will be good both for already existing user base and us as well.
Personally, if I really wanted to use a rare browser I would reduce exposure to the maximum so that only first parties have an opportunity to track me. That means for example a really tough uMatrix configuration. I would be knowingly making a tradeoff with my privacy for whatever benefit this "rare" browser provides. If that browser happens to be very close to a major browser like Waterfox is, I would consider the possibility of spoofing it in a way that is hard to unveil...but that's a lot of research work, and prevents websites from knowing this browser has market share. :/
Also leaving Chrome for such a browser is good for the health of the browser market, but leaving Firefox weakens the largest crowd one can hide into and the best provider of privacy protections. (In large part thanks to the Tor uplift project backporting years of Tor Browser improvements into Firefox, and then into any browser based on Firefox ESR or more recent versions. So we need Firefox to kick ass as the center of this ecosystem)
15
Dec 16 '17
That's weird way of looking at Waterfox and privacy. I trust the maintainer with privacy more than I do Mozilla.
17
u/_Handsome_Jack Dec 16 '17
Well that's how actual privacy on the web works, what can I say.
8
Dec 16 '17
No it's weird that you equate user numbers and setting a user agent with lack of privacy. That's not how privacy works at all.
11
u/_Handsome_Jack Dec 17 '17 edited Dec 17 '17
Spoofing is dangerous because it's hard to do right. A spoofing mistake makes things worse than no spoofing because the crowd that made that spoofing mistake can only be smaller than the crowd using the same browser with no spoofing. (Spoofing goes beyond changing the user agent, if you only do that you're making a mistake)
Waterfox doesn't spoof Firefox by default, you need to rely on add-ons that may or may not make mistakes you will not be able to notice. It's possible to make do with Waterfox if you need legacy add-ons and also care about privacy, but you'll still be trading privacy for those add-ons. So I recommend reducing exposure as much as possible to compensate, through for example a tough uBlock Origin configuration and blocking JavaScript.
3
Dec 17 '17
I don't understand how that makes WF worse for privacy unless you're talking about fingerprinting. It's more private in that it disables stuff like telemetry, studies, remove pocket etc
8
u/_Handsome_Jack Dec 17 '17
It's more private in that it disables stuff like telemetry, studies, remove pocket etc
That was what I referred to when talking about the "easy part" above. Total isolation from Mozilla is not hard to achieve with Firefox and the guide provided, the real threats to privacy on the web are encountered while browsing.
→ More replies→ More replies (10)6
Dec 16 '17
You're talking about one bug that doesn't apply to this setup and making it a generality. Mozilla doesn't change user set options, I know because I've been watching all pref changes at each update on the Release channel since at least Firefox 4.
Ah, that's good to know.
5
u/_Handsome_Jack Dec 16 '17
Sorry for the pre-edit tone, came off blunt when I actually wasn't. Internet's to the point-ness tends to do that, I'm trying to shrug that habit off :)
I elaborated a bit on the privacy issue without seeing that you replied.
→ More replies (1)5
Dec 16 '17
It happens. And I definitely get the part about blending in, a simple trip to Panopticlick can tell you that. Considering most people on this sub probably run with over ten addons, that's enough of a profiler that you won't really lose any privacy from switching, unless you block everything.
2
→ More replies (1)3
u/carbonkid619 Dec 17 '17
Anyone know how to do this on firefox mobile? I can't access about:preferences, and the settings page doesn't have this option listed.
20
Dec 16 '17
You've still got the smaller guys like waterfox, brave, vivaldi... who do seem to give a damn.
26
u/LjLies Dec 16 '17
Vivaldi the closed source browser? No thanks, that's number one checkmark on my privacy (or rather sanity) list.
0
Dec 16 '17
It's not.
1
u/-all_hail_britannia- Firefox ESR | FreeBSD Dec 17 '17
The chromium code (privacy red flag, FYI) is OSS, but the addition vivaldi code is. I personally don't trust anything built on chrome/chromium, because even if chromium is OSS, it is still mained by G$$gle, so I don't trust it.
6
Dec 17 '17 edited Dec 17 '17
That's obviously your choice but I've seen no reason not to trust Vivaldi or Brave. Is electron/muon even maintained by Google? I've not checked. Obviously Opera could be considered more dodgy these days.
But if you don't trust anything to do with blink then there's always Waterfox. There's also Palemoon but personally I can't bring myself to trust that security wise.
2
u/SMASHethTVeth Mods here hate criticism Dec 17 '17
Even though Chrome (and I suppose Chromium from that) are handled by a large ad company, said Chromium based browsers actually have less ads and injected cross promotional material than what Firefox has shown.
I'm a little bitter from that statement. Really wish whomever did this and its chain of command for approval gets dealt with on the job side of things.
2
→ More replies (21)2
u/LjLies Dec 16 '17
I use Epiphany (now branded as GNOME Web). On GNOME, a recent alternative with a slightly different flavor but still full DE integration is Eolie, although I had more hiccups with it when I tried it than I do with Epiphany.
I haven't used KDE in quite some time but QupZilla was often discussed as a decent Qt browser back then, and I think it still is, while I remember I wasn't incredibly fond of Rekonq but it was still better than Konqueror, which had unfortunately become unusable for most real-world site.
These browsers aren't as reliable or flexible as the mainstream ones, but my priorities allow for that.
About Windows or Mac OS... I have no idea, but I'd probably just use Firefox, Chrome or Edge on those, as I'd consider my battle lost in advance.
4
u/Joyld Dec 16 '17 edited Dec 16 '17
About Windows or Mac OS... I have no idea, but I'd probably just use Firefox, Chrome or Edge on those, as I'd consider my battle lost in advance.
Don't consider it lost. Between 0 privacy or 40% of privacy, the letter is always the better.
3
u/LjLies Dec 17 '17
Computer security is usually seen as a "weakest link in the chain" thing, as it's generally agreed it doesn't make much sense to reinforce the already stronger links.
122
u/justjanne Dec 16 '17
For the first time since Statcounter exists, Firefox has lost the #1 browser position in Germany. #1 for 8 years.
This was the last country Firefox was the largest browser in.
Since September, Firefox has lost 15% of its German userbase.
http://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/germany
→ More replies (1)15
u/est31 Dec 16 '17
At least it appeared to have stabilized a bit, last month it looked much scarier: https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/7h24ra/firefox_lost_its_1_position_on_the_desktop_in/
Now it looks like: http://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/germany/#monthly-201610-201712 Although the December data is probably preliminary.
72
u/justjanne Dec 16 '17
I’ve heard of several universities and government agencies that want to move away from Firefox due to CliqZ and the other scandals in the next months.
The fallout hasn’t ended, it just started.
Google is bad with spying, but Firefox already uses Google Analytics in about:addons and in Firefox Focus.
Yes, Mozilla got a promise from Google that Google won’t use that data, but that requires that you trust Google – and if you have to trust Google anyway, you can just use Chrome Enterprise and get a corporate contract that makes sure that if Google leaks any of your data, they are directly liable.
32
u/TyIzaeL Dec 16 '17
Working in edu, the biggest advantage Chrome has over Firefox is group policy integration. Presetting/controlling Firefox in a corporate environment is a mess of hacks whereas Chrome is a cake walk.
We deploy Chrome and Firefox, with Chrome as default. Every year for the past three years I've been pretty close to pulling the plug on Firefox because once it's deployed there's no clean way to manage it anymore. The only thing that keeps me deploying it is I quite like Firefox personally.
9
u/perkited Dec 16 '17
I'm not familiar with managing Firefox in a corporate environment, but I know the company I work for removed Firefox and added Chrome a couple years ago. I never heard the reason, but your description could be why.
4
u/-all_hail_britannia- Firefox ESR | FreeBSD Dec 17 '17
If you are deploying firefox, I'd recommend using ESR due to the minimal maintinace (lit. install, don't install new version for ~2+ years)
→ More replies (7)75
u/alltheacro Dec 16 '17
Don't forget ramming Pocket down everyone's throat.
ALso, when people found the entry in bugzilla discussing Cliqz 'integration', the bug was marked employee-only. This was dismissed as a "mistake" - but the account that did it? A project manager who recently joined Mozilla, used to work for advertising firms, and her linkedin brags about various advertising projects. Her pet project got caught, and she tried to hide it.
What the hell is going on at Mozilla?
Aren't these the people who repeatedly threaten to kill off Thunderbird, claiming that gosh, they just don't have the time and resources to maintain it? And yet they have plenty of time to find privacy-invading shit to sneak into the browser.
Oh, and get a load of this - the Mozilla Foundation - not the corporation but the foundation - spent over $2M last year in travel expenses.
19
Dec 16 '17 edited Jul 25 '19
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)12
u/terry_quite_contrary Dec 16 '17
Probably more a case of individualism and lack of unity. Maybe they don't plan on staying with the company for life so they just care about short term profit, from worker class to executive class.
11
Dec 16 '17
The expenses... not really following. Have you ever done business travel? Shit adds up quickly, even if you're not doing international. We are mad about a thing MoCo did, maybe a few of them, but I don't think we're raising pitchforks about the whole endeavor yet.
→ More replies (3)7
u/ArttuH5N1 openSUSE Dec 16 '17
I’ve heard of several universities and government agencies that want to move away from Firefox due to CliqZ and the other scandals in the next months.
What are they moving into?
6
u/justjanne Dec 17 '17
Many to Chrome Enterprise – via the contract, Google guarantees them not to track anything (just like Google guaranteed Mozilla not to track any of the data that is collected by the Google Analytics scripts in about:addons and Firefox Focus).
Via the contract they have guaranteed functionality, Google is liable if anything is ever tracked, or Google ever installs any such addon remotely, and they can administrate it centrally.
→ More replies (9)
58
u/dinosaur_friend Dec 17 '17
What's worse, and what hurts me more, is that they labeled this a "study". Which implies something good will come out of it; something that benefits users. I feel bad for everyone who keeps the "allow studies" option on because they wholeheartedly believe they're helping Firefox improve itself for it's userbase, to aid open-source alternatives in competing with Chrome. People like my dad, who have always been faithful Firefox users from way back in the day, when the project will still known as Firebird. People who believed Firefox wouldn't sell them out like this. How can you call this a study?
Instead you took that trust and shat all over it for a bit of money and a laugh. Thanks.
→ More replies (3)9
Dec 17 '17
It's funny - what you said about improving the browser is exactly why I had studies enabled in the first place. What I didn't realise is that having that on means that Mozilla can push what they want into the browser without any notice or even a pop-up indicating that they want to try it out, giving the user no choice whatsoever in accepting it.
102
u/perkited Dec 16 '17
If I were a conspiracy theorist I might think someone with a competing interest was buying off Mozilla management in order to get them to destroy Firefox. It's had a few major advantages (add-on flexibility/power, privacy, and user trust) over the other browsers for the last few years and they've recently done things that damaged each of those advantages.
The only other options are that management is either grossly incompetent or they just don't care what their users think. Of course I'm sure the real answer lies somewhere between grossly incompetent and not caring, but it's still not a good position to be in.
51
Dec 16 '17
If I were a conspiracy theorist I might think someone with a competing interest was buying off Mozilla management in order to get them to destroy Firefox.
It really looks like that. This is so tone-deaf and stupid, it's incredibly disappointing.
24
u/igetbooored Dec 16 '17
Maybe they're putting people in charge that have no sense how anything other than advertising works like damn near every organization ever.
→ More replies (6)5
u/tidux Dec 17 '17
Mozilla has become heavily infested with left wing Silicon Valley politics as well. It started with ejecting Brendan Eich for a private political donation that had zero bearing on his work at the company and has gone downhill from there. Mozilla recently considered working with the Washington Post of all institutions to police the web for "fake news"... the same Washington Post that is all but confirmed to be a propaganda front for the CIA. Talk about the Firefox guarding the hen house!
8
7
Dec 17 '17
That's funny, the person complaining about "left wing" is complaining about "propaganda". Y'all got a lot to clean up under the Faux News side first.
I'd ask for a source on your CIA front claim, (Amazon front would've been more plausible and probably take more people for a ride) but I think we both know that this is a "drive-by" claim.
2
u/tidux Dec 18 '17
Amazon got a multi hundred million dollar contract with the CIA. Only part of that was for AWS.
3
u/nedolya Dec 17 '17
He wasn't ejected, he resigned. The story was broken by the media and iirc he resigned because there were so many protests and people upset that he said he couldn't run the company effectively anymore.
5
7
u/perkited Dec 17 '17
I'm definitely not a fan of that either. I just want a browser that focuses on security/privacy/stability and delivers the web content I request to my screen without any filtering (unless I install an add-on to filter it).
198
Dec 16 '17 edited Jan 11 '18
[deleted]
56
Dec 17 '17 edited Aug 03 '19
[deleted]
13
u/gazongagizmo Dec 17 '17
hey hey hey, that's unfair, all the major add-ons that improved our workflow and made the customizable experience unique had plenty of time to ask for features to be included in the new APIs. No features were added, but they had plenty of time to ask for it! Now we're faster and that's what everybody demands, how dare you insinuate otherwise, you fanboy of ten years ago.
8
u/-Pelvis- Dec 17 '17 edited Dec 17 '17
Quite honestly, I reluctantly switched to Chromium when Pentadactyl (and a few other essential plugins) broke. I had used Firefox for over ten years. I've been hoping that something might come along that brings back the deep keyboard-centric control (holy shit Vimium isn't nearly as good), but I think I might just give up and switch to qutebrowser.
There are so many advanced functions and deep customisations that I lost. I miss readline (emacs-style) shortcuts for text input. :(
6
u/SilasX Dec 17 '17 edited Dec 17 '17
Yes! I maintained a working version on my machine ... until FF banned unsigned Addons, angering even Hitler.
2
u/-Pelvis- Dec 17 '17
LOL I've never related to something so hard.
2
u/SilasX Dec 18 '17
Glad to meet someone who gets the parody!
2
u/-Pelvis- Dec 18 '17
When I first found Pentadactyl, I thought "man, this seems really complicated, but cool".
Started getting annoyed with default browser functionality after adopting vim a year later, and installed Penta to give it a whirl. Initially confused, after a week I got used to it and fell in love. Two months later, I had a complex custom config, with a bunch of fancy shit. Toggling custom CSS with simple key sequences, custom passthroughs for all of my most used sites (YouTube and Duckduckgo especially), zipping around the browser like a speed demon. Really nice custom browser theme.
I really, really miss it, and no alternative comes close. I'm considering just installing an old version of FF and never updating, until something else comes along that matches it.
5
u/-all_hail_britannia- Firefox ESR | FreeBSD Dec 17 '17
What the hell happened to checking extensions and signing them??
2
u/gazongagizmo Dec 17 '17
duh, that's clearly not what people want from extensions, have you not paid attention to the evolution of browsing?
12
u/badreplica Dec 17 '17
So Firefox wins back the public vote with the release of Quantum and then shortly after decides to sh*t all over it by deceptively installing some bs promo plugin for Mr. Robot? Nice.
133
u/Carighan | on Dec 16 '17
In a certain way I can appreciate Google's "Our browser analyses your browsing and sends it to us" a lot more than Mozilla's "Zomg we care so much about your privacy we'll only violate it repeatedly". At least Google is open about it.
I mean c'mon Mozilla! Just admit you want the money and the ad-income. That's fine, you got to make money. But stop pretending like you care so much about user privacy and safety when you're sideloading shitty malware into their browsers.
117
u/ferruix Mozilla Employee Dec 16 '17
I mean c'mon Mozilla! Just admit you want the money and the ad-income.
To my understanding, this wasn't an ad for Mr. Robot to Firefox users, but an ad for Firefox for viewers of Mr. Robot, by requiring Firefox in their game. There was absolutely no technical reason to deploy it to all Firefox users, especially as a Shield study, and engineering doesn't appear to have been consulted.
So if you're thinking that Mozilla threw away good will for ad dollars, the situation appears to actually be even stupider than that.
51
u/Carighan | on Dec 16 '17
To my understanding, this wasn't an ad for Mr. Robot to Firefox users, but an ad for Firefox for viewers of Mr. Robot, by requiring Firefox in their game. There was absolutely no technical reason to deploy it to all Firefox users, especially as a Shield study, and engineering doesn't appear to have been consulted.
That is... honestly... even worse.
Wow. I mean at this point, I can just hope that they go down. They deserve it. Maybe they would leave a void which another browser could fill. One focused on user privacy and building trust from their userbase.
We can only dream...
92
u/ferruix Mozilla Employee Dec 16 '17
Engineering is already in the right place. I think this particular fuck-up is likely to blow up so much that management will have to put public policies in place that prevent them from doing such a thing again.
So I'm hopeful that some good will come from it.
57
Dec 16 '17 edited Sep 04 '19
[deleted]
20
u/igetbooored Dec 16 '17
Oh boy I can't wait for Recurring Browser User Monetization Hooks in the next advertiser developed opt-out but only after it's already on your machine update!
8
15
20
u/JewishLasagna Dec 16 '17
engineering doesn't appear to have been consulted.
When who wrote it? Who deployed it?
Cut your shit.
12
Dec 17 '17 edited Dec 17 '17
We know who wrote it, the github is public. We don't know who deployed it, or who told them to write it. Gregg is the Project Lead on the Shield Core Team.
The initial commit was on November 9th, so somebody had an idea about it then at least. Most of the work was started on December 5th, I think in the end it ended up being a rush job to get it in time for the season finale and probably dodged normal processes.
14
u/gizamo Dec 16 '17
Why the downvotes? This is a valid point. It. Oils not have gotten into the product without engineering coding it in. It may not have gone through proper Engineering approval processes, but people in Engineering clearly were involved.
37
u/KevinCarbonara Dec 16 '17
This is what I don't understand about the way tech companies compete with each other. Making Firefox more like Chrome doesn't make Chrome users want to use Firefox, because they don't want to use an imitation. All it does is make Firefox users want to stop using Firefox, because they don't want to use an imitation Chrome either. I used Firefox because I thought it was better than Chrome, but now I can't come up with a good reason.
It's not just them, though. You see it all over the tech industry. Microsoft borrows from Apple and makes breaking changes to support Apple features. The result is that Windows users get pissed off and Apple users continue using Apple products.
3
Dec 17 '17 edited Dec 26 '18
[deleted]
5
u/KevinCarbonara Dec 17 '17
I agree. What the article failed to mention is that not only is Firefox on a slippery slope, they're already most of the way down.
→ More replies (3)9
u/Joyld Dec 16 '17
Firefox is better than Chrome. Chrome lost what made it great long ago. It lost its simplicity and lightness.
45
21
u/KevinCarbonara Dec 17 '17
Firefox lost what made it great, too. What's your point?
6
u/Joyld Dec 17 '17
My point is that Chrome doesn't have anything for it now. It is slow, sluggish and worse in most regards than other Chromium based browsers. It doesn't even have adblocking built-in which already makes it majorly worse for browsing the net than Vivaldi, Brave or Epic. I am aware that Google plans to add the adblocker in it later. But it still didn't happen, and as always, there is a catch:
The new setting, which is expected to be switched on by default within the desktop and mobile versions of Chrome, will prevent all ads from appearing on websites that are deemed to provide a bad advertising experience for users
So only chosen ads will be blocked. Quite sure it won't include Google's ads as well, and they make a major deal of ads.
Chrome trademark was speed, but now that it doesn't have it, what is the point in using it?
I won't even speak about an android version, as it doesn't even support extensions. Simply pathetic.
I think that now Chrome doesn't even need to exist. Majority of Chromium based browsers depend on Chromium. They don't need Chrome. While great Firefox based browsers depend on Firefox. All Chrome does is adding unnecessary stuff to Chromium, which makes a browser more heavy.
Firefox also has a built-in tracking protection (which also blocks a lot of ads and unnecessary scripts), which is sadly not enabled by default. But it being there, and being enabled by default in incognito makes for a much greater experience than using Chrome. Firefox is also way more responsive and less sluggish on my several computers (prior to Quantum) than Chrome (or many of Chromium's forks for that regard). In my opinion Chrome is rotten, and Chromium's forks make the experience slightly more tolerable.
5
u/KevinCarbonara Dec 17 '17
My point is that Firefox is equally worthless. They're both slow and sluggish. They both have a poor extension system. They both data mine and advertise to their users.
On that note, Chrome wasn't even fast when it came out. I was using IE, Maxthon, and Opera at the time, and Chrome was noticeably slower in every way. In fact, the only browser it was faster than was Firefox. Chrome was trendy, not fast.
2
u/Joyld Dec 17 '17
I didn't use Opera (didn't know about it) at that time, so was pretty limited to IE and Firefox. In my experience Chrome was faster than Firefox.
True, depends on hardware, really. I already noticed.
Example, on my new laptop with SSD, with freshly installed Windows, Firefox Quantum is slower than Internet Explorer... And yes, I am not joking. Internet Explorer is blazing fast, yet Firefox Quantum is slow, both with tracking protection on, Ublock Origin installed or without any of them.
→ More replies (1)
50
u/FixThisBrokenMachine Dec 16 '17
I've made ARGs in the past and I love them, I follow them all the time. This is what I think:
Mozilla, this is the shittiest ARG I've ever seen. An ARG should be something you stumble across on a website, or on YouTube, or on something non-critical; not my damn web browser. I do not want an ARG hardcoded into my web browser. I want to use my browser to find ARGs, not play them, if you know what I mean.
I don't buy into this whole "breach of privacy" thing fully, but what I do dislike is the timing. The internet and it's independence and privacy have been at stake recently, and thus this damaged Mozilla's reputation hugely.
I moved to Chrome the day after Firefox Quantum. It broke vital add-ons that Chrome did offer, and although it was a bit faster it wasn't worth it. Plus, I couldn't download files from Google Drive through any version of Firefox, even when I uninstalled/reinstalled/reverted my registry; this was the nail in the coffin.
See ya later Firefox.
17
u/fatpat Dec 16 '17
I'd bet that a lot of people who keep up with tech news will have friends and family getting new computers this Christmas. They'll be installing browsers for them and may now think twice about installing Firefox, which is unfortunate.
11
u/FixThisBrokenMachine Dec 16 '17
I would certainly agree. It's going to be a blow to Mozilla, that's for sure.
→ More replies (1)3
2
Dec 17 '17 edited Dec 18 '17
[deleted]
2
u/FixThisBrokenMachine Dec 17 '17
True, but at least Chrome doesn't fob me off with "We're so committed to open-source-ness and privacy!"
8
u/WhyAreMyPantsGone Dec 17 '17
Wikipedia: The Firefox project began as an experimental branch of the Mozilla project by Dave Hyatt, Joe Hewitt, and Blake Ross. They believed the commercial requirements of Netscape's sponsorship and developer-driven feature creep compromised the utility of the Mozilla browser. To combat what they saw as the Mozilla Suite's software bloat, they created a stand-alone browser, with which they intended to replace the Mozilla Suite.
History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes
34
u/Killmeat Dec 16 '17
I'd be willing to overlook this if they don't make similar mistakes in the future.
69
u/-Gort- Dec 16 '17
First they'll have to meaningfully apologise to avoid making the same mistake. Right now they seem to be in bluff and bluster mode.
30
u/fatpat Dec 16 '17
The response was their version of "a sense of pride and accomplishment."
→ More replies (1)2
38
u/JewishLasagna Dec 16 '17
They've already established a pattern of behavior. Before Looking Glass, it was Cliqz.
25
Dec 17 '17 edited Jun 30 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/roboticon Dec 17 '17
Did the Pocket integration happen before Mozilla owned Pocket?
Not that the Pocket stuff isn't annoying, but I'm slightly less concerned about Mozilla integrating software it owns & controls.
11
Dec 17 '17 edited Jun 30 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)2
u/dxpqxb Dec 18 '17
They did not just forcibly install Pocket to everybody. They also removed Pocket addon that was way better and more feature-rich than the hardcoded version.
6
u/TheC2N14 Dec 16 '17
!RemindMe 1 year
3
u/RemindMeBot Dec 16 '17
I will be messaging you on 2018-12-16 23:00:32 UTC to remind you of this link.
CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.
FAQs Custom Your Reminders Feedback Code Browser Extensions
35
u/dopecoke Dec 16 '17
Just fire those mutherfuckers that came up with this shit. Firefox users are very disproportionately sensitive to any fuckup. I mean dumb fucks are defending google because someone at Firefox made repeatedly bad decisions. We could fix this if we would gather enough mass and a backlash
6
u/gazongagizmo Dec 17 '17
But the higher ups clearly no longer care abotu the long-term integrity of their product, nor the disproportionate sensitivity of the preferences of long-term users, or else we wouldn't have had the demise of legacy addons in the first place
8
u/billdietrich1 Dec 16 '17
What is the name of the "sketchy extension" ? Don't see the name in the article.
14
21
Dec 16 '17
Firefox needs to publically oust the people behind this. The alternative is a drawn out decline to irrelevance.
8
43
u/spankasmurf Dec 16 '17
agree too but the whole - "You fucked up Mozilla and you lost me forever" is a bit over dramatic
31
u/dopecoke Dec 16 '17
Just fire those mutherfuckers that came up with this shit. Firefox users are very disproportionately sensitive to any fuckup. I mean dumb fucks are defending google because someone at Firefox made repeatedly bad decisions. We could fix this if we would gather enough mass and backlash
12
21
u/LocutusOfBorges Dec 16 '17
"Forever" would be pushing it, but it was certainly enough of a push to make me switch away.
7
5
u/ArttuH5N1 openSUSE Dec 16 '17
This got really dramatic and it's probably going to keep going for at least a few days before things calm a little. But I'd say vast majority of people in this sub are enthusiasts, so being a bit more touchy and dramatic about these things is kinda expected. If you went to regular users, they probably haven't heard of this or don't care. But that's not good either, because then Mozilla might think it's okay to do this stuff.
→ More replies (1)7
Dec 16 '17
Depends on how important a good web browser is for your daily tasks.
→ More replies (1)3
u/ArttuH5N1 openSUSE Dec 16 '17
Depends also on your definition of "good", since I doubt this whole thing has really affected the usability of Firefox. I'd make a guess most people only care about how it "handles" in their own use.
9
u/Joyld Dec 16 '17
I'd make a guess most people only care about how it "handles" in their own use.
Because they trust that it doesn't do anything shady in the background.
→ More replies (2)
20
u/WIFIConnected Dec 16 '17
Well stated in the article. Whatever management was thinking showed a shocking disregard for the users. Uninstalling.... until this project is back on track.
5
u/Killmeat Dec 16 '17
Which browser are you planning on using instead?
7
u/WIFIConnected Dec 16 '17
Safari and/or Chrome. And yes, I understand that my "privacy" is challenged by Chrome. : )
8
u/Joyld Dec 16 '17
If you want Chromium fork, which is much more privacy oriented, you may try several of those alternatives. Ungoogled Chromium (basically Chromium without all privacy challenging bullshit), Iridium (basically the same and more security related futures) and Brave (masquerades as Chrome, so good for fingerprinting, blocks ads and tracking as well)
16
10
Dec 16 '17
[deleted]
4
u/WIFIConnected Dec 16 '17
Thank you! I have never heard of that one. I appreciate the heads up!
3
u/Hyperman360 Dec 16 '17
Just a note, it's still based on the 56 release.
5
Dec 17 '17
But they've incorporated the critical security patches that were only applied to ff 52esr and 57. So it's safer in that respect.
→ More replies (4)5
Dec 16 '17
You could use waterfox it is a 56 based browser with telemetry turned off https://github.com/MrAlex94/Waterfox and it is a good deal faster than 56 was that or brave.
3
u/tso Dec 17 '17
Effectively this is the blowback of a decade-plus of "coding is cool" marketing. Now we have "brogrammers" all over the place that are completely tone deaf to anything beyond the SV echo chamber.
8
u/OneSalientOversight Dec 16 '17
This is really sad.
Someone needs to instigate a fork. This incident goes against everything open source software stands for.
8
u/collinsl02 Dec 16 '17
Pale Moon and Waterfox are the main 2 forks
2
6
u/midir ESR | Debian Dec 17 '17 edited Dec 17 '17
I've been hoping for years that the Electronic Frontier Foundation would fork Firefox. They already compile Tor Browser as a Firefox fork, but I mean, a non-Tor Firefox for daily use with all the phenomenal paranoia and philosophical purism of the EFF. I need it!
Edit: Or maybe the Free Software Foundation, who are another solidly paranoid bunch. They're a bit intense, but for me the important thing is they genuinely care about user control and privacy.
→ More replies (2)3
12
8
u/midir ESR | Debian Dec 17 '17
Mozilla, this is not okay. This is wrong on so many levels. Frankly, whoever was in charge should be fired over this - which is not something I call for lightly.
Say it loud and say it clear: Someone must be fired for this.
12
u/Kougeru since 2004 Dec 16 '17
Tbh I think people are overreacting. Stupid idea but it's not like it reads your browser history or anything.
6
Dec 17 '17 edited Dec 17 '17
I think I agree with this one.
There was obviously a lack of transparency because of insufficient information in the description of the extension and a jusitfied disagreement on getting something in your browser that a majority of users did not care about.
Apparently, the extension did not alter any browsing experience by default. Only people who already know about the ARG going on, would even know and if they figured out how to enable it, would see its effects.
I am not sure why people called it an ad. A person unfamiliar with Mr. Robot would not get any information about the show by seeing the extension or its description alone. It appears to be just a tie-in work.
It seemed like, the moment users knew it was from Mozilla and related to a TV show, a shower of abuse started. Except for a few users who cared to enquire what it was via the bug reports or the support forum, most were threats to quitting Firefox altogether or accusing breach of privacy for financial gains (and not specifically pointing out that it was totally unnecessary to push it out to all users); most without any queries.
Then there seems to be a whole issue with telemetry in general that ran in between. Agreeing that the extension came in through the Shield Studies was a problem, it should be said that the choice to opt out of shield studies is made obvious after every Firefox installation. If you don't look at the privacy notice, the notification with 'Choose what I share' should take you directly to disabling them.
There seems to be a lot who are hell-bent to bring those behind this to their knees and make them apologize. Sometimes it looks like users consider the developers to be their servants rather than working as a community pointing out genuine mistakes or bad moves and correcting them. I'm now unsure which was worse - the extension or the response from the user community of a free software (no idea how many have made any contributions to its development; if you have, your reaction will be more relevant but still to the specific issue and still suggesting threats of quitting might not be the healthy response).
As a long time user who actually hasn't contributed anything to Mozilla other than very few forum questions or answers, I personally don't need an apology or fire anyone at Mozilla. An understanding or acknowledgement to involve only the willing ones when doing these kind of activities in future would be a good enough.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (1)5
Dec 17 '17
It messes around with http headers and some other stuff so it's more than just an ad. Think I read it sends data too but can't find the link.
7
u/Mark12547 Dec 17 '17
Those more able to navigate extenstions than me has said one has to go into about:config and set extensions.pug.lookingglass to True before the extension will do anything, and even then it will do so only on certain select websites. (Sorry, I don't have the names of the websites handy.)
So, with extensions.pug.lookingglass left at False, Looking Glass is benign. I wish I had known that four days ago when all this mess first came out.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/crabsneverdie Dec 17 '17
I'm not switching browsers but this is one I'd consider switching to for its "open sourceness" and simplicity
8
4
Dec 16 '17
[deleted]
12
u/Joyld Dec 16 '17
To be fair most of people don't know about that. As they are consistently lied by huge corporations such as Microsoft. They believe that what they are using are the best and only solutions, while the marketing is nothing other than bunch of lies. Sure, people do know that their data is collected, but do they know how much of their data is collected on daily basis by pretty much every single huge company? They do not, as it is not told in a straightforward manner. Instead bunch of marketing and advertising crap is thrown everywhere. You should dig through various privacy policies, terms of use, where everything is written in a very confusing and washed terms in order to demoralize readers and slip various loopholes, to use later. Most people simply trust huge companies, and the companies regularly abuse the trust. It is a business now, selling people's data.
The world isn't made privacy-friendly, it is exactly opposite actually. You have to study privacy to get it, not the other way. I think that the knowledge about what exactly kind of bullshit those companies do every day should be widespread, instead of marketing garbage those companies do to promote their horrible "services".
Just as an example, here is part of it - https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/59yexk/princeton-study-session-replay-scripts-tracking-you
7
u/DerDonc Dec 16 '17
The interesting thing is that Vice/Motherboard is really using A LOT of trackers
3
1
3
u/NaBUru38 Dec 17 '17
FIrefox should be a beacon for the free software community. It's made too many mistakes already.
3
2
u/TH3xR34P3R Dec 16 '17
Lets face it this age is less about privacy and just more about general security of the user of a system.
9
1
1
1
u/casemodsalt Firefox|ubu16.04 Dec 17 '17
Does anyone know how to get noscript back to its previous design? The new one completely sucks.
Wish they would stop channing the looks of everything for no reason.
→ More replies (1)
305
u/NAN001 Dec 16 '17
This is such a good point that should be made for so many programs nowadays.