Re: [gentoo-user] What do you think about Firefox 57?

[Danny YUE]

On 2017-09-11 01:19, Daniel Campbell  wrote:
> On 09/07/2017 05:26 AM, Danny YUE wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I have been using FoxyProxy in Firefox for a really long time, until
>> today I found its new version really sucks.
>> 
>> Then I read the comment from author who declared that the old version
>> can *only* be used before (roughly) end of 2017 before Firefox 57 and in
>> new version some features must perish.
>> 
>> Afterwards I found that it seems Firefox 57 will use a new ecosystem for
>> extensions and be more strict for plugin developers.
>> 
>> So Firefox gurus, what do you think about it?
>> 
>> 
>> Danny
>> 
> 
> I switched to Pale Moon a while ago, though I suspect fewer and fewer
> mainstream sites will work with it as devs will begin requiring features
> enabled in newer Firefox and Chrome (e.g. WebRTC, EME, localStorage,
> etc). GitHub has already dropped support for Pale Moon, despite PM
> supporting just about everything GitHub makes use of.
>
> Losing XUL may be great from a security standpoint, but the feature-set
> is lacking, it negatively impacts performance (no cache sharing,
> blockers can't block correctly without a full render prior) and it all
> reeks of a code merge. Why else would Mozilla be putting all this work
> into looking *and* acting like Chrome? This behavior is that of a
> company that is looking to get out of the market. They've already
> abandoned their phone OS and their e-mail/calendar client. Firefox is
> just the final nail in the coffin. Servo isn't up to snuff yet, and the
> power users that gave Firefox its popularity are (like me) disinterested
> in what passes for "modern Web". Many websites are flat-out malicious,
> and more are insecure in general, largely due to feature creep in the
> browser. Without the ability to protect yourself, it becomes a risky
> decision to continue browsing a space filled with surveillance and
> malware. In short, it's a dumpster fire. Like all grim scenarios,
> however, there are sites out there that don't abuse people. But that
> number is dwindling every day.
>
> Aside from that, the hard requirement on PulseAudio is another strike
> against it, and their culture wrt diversity is off-putting. Mozilla
> isn't the Web leader it once was. To its credit, I don't think any
> organization is "leading" the Web well. With the W3C approving DRM as a
> standard in HTTP, it indicates a corporate acquisition of the standards
> body, and it's no longer fit for purpose. We need a browser that is
> opinionated and sticks to the standards that make sense, and hands
> control of media to other programs. That would severely simplify the
> browser, and leverage software that's generally already on a computer.
> Web browsers as they are are fine for netbooks, which have little in the
> way of system software. But for desktop machines, at least, most things
> can be handed to a media player, PDF viewer, etc. The code's already
> there: there are handlers for different protocols like irc:, mailto:,
> torrent:, etc. Adding handlers via MIME-type would be fine.
>
> As it is, I already don't read much on the Web. The experience has
> become crap, even with blocking extensions. More trouble than it's
> worth, most of the time. I have better things to do than endlessly tweak
> my privacy just so sites don't slurp up all the metadata they can on my
> connection. uBO, Privacy Badger, uMatrix, and others are great -- huge
> jumps in quality compared to their predecessors -- but the rampant
> misuse of the medium leaves me disinterested in the Web.
>
> So few websites these days are designed with graceful degradation in
> mind, let alone accessibility. It's all ECMAscript bells and whistles,
> web "apps", etc. to the point where you have two systems: your Gentoo
> system and your Web browser. I try to reduce complexity where possible,
> balanced against safety. That leads me to an upstream who won't screw
> with my interface and disrupt the add-on ecosystem because "this is
> better for you".
>
> Based on what I've read so far, Moonchild is up front about any
> breakage, and warns about unsupported compilers or settings. One of our
> regulars (Walter Dnes) helps maintain PM for us, too, so that's even
> better. :)
>
> But to be fair, I'll try it out when 57 is released so I have a stronger
> opinion. I suspect I will be let down.
> 

Such a long response, thank you Daniel.

I don't know if adding DRM into HTTP protocol is a good idea.
Maybe it does help reduce spreading of pirate, but HTTP then somehow
works beyond "transfer".

Personally speaking, I prefer to be able to pick software in a grand
market, instead of integrate everything into one big monster with
security/privacy holes.

I would like to try 57 also (with old Firefox profile backup).


Danny

Re: [gentoo-user] What do you think about Firefox 57?

[Daniel Campbell]

On 09/07/2017 07:47 AM, Ralph Seichter wrote:
> On 07.09.2017 15:20, Danny YUE wrote:
> 
>> Well, I know it is not the perfect place but I don't want to spam my
>> inbox with Firefox topics, so that's why I don't subscribe that mail
>> list and am asking here. ;-)
> 
> And you believe that spamming the inbox people interested in Gentoo
> (that's why we subscribed to this mailing list) is OK ? ;-) Seriously,
> this is completely off-topic here, so please use the appropriate mailing
> lists instead. Thanks.
> 
> -Ralph
> 
> 
> 
gentoo-user is for support *and* general talk.

https://gentoo.org/get-involved/mailing-lists/

-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer, Trustee, Treasurer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-user] What do you think about Firefox 57?

[Daniel Campbell]

On 09/07/2017 05:26 AM, Danny YUE wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I have been using FoxyProxy in Firefox for a really long time, until
> today I found its new version really sucks.
> 
> Then I read the comment from author who declared that the old version
> can *only* be used before (roughly) end of 2017 before Firefox 57 and in
> new version some features must perish.
> 
> Afterwards I found that it seems Firefox 57 will use a new ecosystem for
> extensions and be more strict for plugin developers.
> 
> So Firefox gurus, what do you think about it?
> 
> 
> Danny
> 

I switched to Pale Moon a while ago, though I suspect fewer and fewer
mainstream sites will work with it as devs will begin requiring features
enabled in newer Firefox and Chrome (e.g. WebRTC, EME, localStorage,
etc). GitHub has already dropped support for Pale Moon, despite PM
supporting just about everything GitHub makes use of.

Losing XUL may be great from a security standpoint, but the feature-set
is lacking, it negatively impacts performance (no cache sharing,
blockers can't block correctly without a full render prior) and it all
reeks of a code merge. Why else would Mozilla be putting all this work
into looking *and* acting like Chrome? This behavior is that of a
company that is looking to get out of the market. They've already
abandoned their phone OS and their e-mail/calendar client. Firefox is
just the final nail in the coffin. Servo isn't up to snuff yet, and the
power users that gave Firefox its popularity are (like me) disinterested
in what passes for "modern Web". Many websites are flat-out malicious,
and more are insecure in general, largely due to feature creep in the
browser. Without the ability to protect yourself, it becomes a risky
decision to continue browsing a space filled with surveillance and
malware. In short, it's a dumpster fire. Like all grim scenarios,
however, there are sites out there that don't abuse people. But that
number is dwindling every day.

Aside from that, the hard requirement on PulseAudio is another strike
against it, and their culture wrt diversity is off-putting. Mozilla
isn't the Web leader it once was. To its credit, I don't think any
organization is "leading" the Web well. With the W3C approving DRM as a
standard in HTTP, it indicates a corporate acquisition of the standards
body, and it's no longer fit for purpose. We need a browser that is
opinionated and sticks to the standards that make sense, and hands
control of media to other programs. That would severely simplify the
browser, and leverage software that's generally already on a computer.
Web browsers as they are are fine for netbooks, which have little in the
way of system software. But for desktop machines, at least, most things
can be handed to a media player, PDF viewer, etc. The code's already
there: there are handlers for different protocols like irc:, mailto:,
torrent:, etc. Adding handlers via MIME-type would be fine.

As it is, I already don't read much on the Web. The experience has
become crap, even with blocking extensions. More trouble than it's
worth, most of the time. I have better things to do than endlessly tweak
my privacy just so sites don't slurp up all the metadata they can on my
connection. uBO, Privacy Badger, uMatrix, and others are great -- huge
jumps in quality compared to their predecessors -- but the rampant
misuse of the medium leaves me disinterested in the Web.

So few websites these days are designed with graceful degradation in
mind, let alone accessibility. It's all ECMAscript bells and whistles,
web "apps", etc. to the point where you have two systems: your Gentoo
system and your Web browser. I try to reduce complexity where possible,
balanced against safety. That leads me to an upstream who won't screw
with my interface and disrupt the add-on ecosystem because "this is
better for you".

Based on what I've read so far, Moonchild is up front about any
breakage, and warns about unsupported compilers or settings. One of our
regulars (Walter Dnes) helps maintain PM for us, too, so that's even
better. :)

But to be fair, I'll try it out when 57 is released so I have a stronger
opinion. I suspect I will be let down.

-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer, Trustee, Treasurer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-user] Is anyone using Scaleway VM hosting?

[Alexey Eschenko]

I'm using Scaleway with Gentoo VM for two months. You can try to ask 
here but I don't know if I can answer to you properly.


Also I'd rather recommend to write to Scaleway support. They usually 
answers in one business day.



On 09/10/2017 08:10 PM, Stroller wrote:

Further to my previous thread asking for VM hosting recommendations, I thought 
I'd try www.Scaleway.com, who are amongst the cheapest.

I have a question about snapshots and images, but I'm finding it a bit hard to 
articulate my confusion, and there's no point in writing more unless there's 
someone who's familiar with this.

Thanks,

Stroller.




--
Kind regards,
Alexey Eschenko
https://skobk.in/

[gentoo-user] Is anyone using Scaleway VM hosting?

[Stroller]

Further to my previous thread asking for VM hosting recommendations, I thought 
I'd try www.Scaleway.com, who are amongst the cheapest.

I have a question about snapshots and images, but I'm finding it a bit hard to 
articulate my confusion, and there's no point in writing more unless there's 
someone who's familiar with this.

Thanks,

Stroller.