Re: Windows XP and Vista Long Term Support Plan

2016-11-01 Thread Peter Dolanjski
> > Chutten is not as categoric as you are: > > It is also possible that we’ve seen some ex-Chrome users fleeing > Google’s drop of support from earlier this year. > This is possible, but I'd still expect to see the biggest impact when Chrome started including the scary persistent notification

Re: Windows XP and Vista Long Term Support Plan

2016-11-01 Thread Mike Hommey
On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 09:28:40AM +0800, Peter Dolanjski wrote: > On 10/31/2016 3:54 PM, juar...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > Discontinuing support for 10% of users sounds like shrinking 10% of > > customers, lay off 10% of employees, reduce 10% of funds for > > investments. > > > I can tell you

Re: Windows XP and Vista Long Term Support Plan

2016-11-01 Thread Peter Dolanjski
On 10/31/2016 3:54 PM, juar...@gmail.com wrote: > > Discontinuing support for 10% of users sounds like shrinking 10% of > customers, lay off 10% of employees, reduce 10% of funds for investments. I can tell you that the evidence we have does not support the notion that end of life (or the

Fwd: Scheduling requests misbehaving in the last two days

2016-11-01 Thread Armen Zambrano G.
Spreading the original information beyond the original mailing list. Unfortunately, requests to backfill jobs or adding new jobs (and similar) are not keeping up. The requests are not being processed fast enough. I will email again once it is resolved. If you're curious, here's the bug I'm

Re: Removing navigator.buildID?

2016-11-01 Thread Eric Rescorla
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 11:15 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > > Taking a step back: is fingerprinting really a solvable problem in > > practice? At this point, are there a significant fraction of users > > who

Re: Removing navigator.buildID?

2016-11-01 Thread Martin Thomson
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 11:15 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > Taking a step back: is fingerprinting really a solvable problem in > practice? At this point, are there a significant fraction of users > who can't be fingerprinted pretty reliably? Inevitably, the more > features we add to

Re: Removing navigator.buildID?

2016-11-01 Thread Gregory Szorc
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 7:21 AM, Kohei Yoshino wrote: > So the Battery Status API has just been removed, I think now is a good > time to think about navigator.buildID again, which bug [1] has been > inactive for a whole year. > > 4 years ago, Firefox 16 removed a minor

Re: Removing navigator.buildID?

2016-11-01 Thread Aryeh Gregor
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: >> If the concern is fingerprinting, perhaps it could be exposed only to >> sites that the user is logged into (assuming we have a good working >>

Re: Removing navigator.buildID?

2016-11-01 Thread Gijs Kruitbosch
The buildID changing rapidly provides a bigger, rather than a smaller, fingerprinting surface. ~ Gijs On 01/11/2016 08:09, Chris Pearce wrote: It's not just Netflix that the media playback team has used navigator.buildID in order to validate fixes; we've used it with other large video sites

Re: Removing navigator.buildID?

2016-11-01 Thread Chris Pearce
It's not just Netflix that the media playback team has used navigator.buildID in order to validate fixes; we've used it with other large video sites too. It's invaluable for determining whether a bug has been fixed in a build. Can we only disable navigator.buildID in release builds? Don't