complete idiot
Something you have no right to accuse anyone of being.
What I would like to see is a fork of Firefox that directly incorporates the
common add-ons added by the community directly into the browser. The idea
that a browser has to be augmented with Https everywhere, no-script, and
other freedom relevant add-ons to function the way the community
ChaosEsque has forked Darkplaces aswell: we stay on a branch that works
equally well with old intel gfx because we don't want to throw people under
the bus, something swine like you don't understand.
We patch it from time to time, and sometimes add small features of our own,
but mainly
Mozilla is not a friend anymore. Nor is Linux post-systemd.
Mozilla is about two things today: advertisement and progressive
(feminist/lgbt) politics. Not classical free software. This explains their
actions.
Just like systemd/linux, mozilla needs to be forked (and it has been:
palemoon
I don't really understand why the Tor Browser uses firefox.
How can something that churns so often be secure?
I am French but live in Belo Horizonte (Brazil), where I am a university
professor. My research deals with data-mining. I mainly study the extraction
of closed patterns in n-dimensional data. Check out my website:
http://dcc.ufmg.br/~lcerf
Yay datamining: aka spying. Hmm the other
Going to tell us to fork anything else?
Because so far you are zero for 2.
YEP We forked Xonotic (Bigtime).
YEP We forked Darkplaces (just alittle, but we like to keep compat with old
intel hardware and dabble in adding small features once in a blue moon, and
ofcourse adding patches that
Data mining can be used for for spying. It can also be used for other
purposes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_mining#Notable_uses.
Yea- I'm not entirely sure this is as bad as some are suggesting, but it's
not entirely clear to me why they are removing the preference. I'd think it
were to prevent malicious applications- which might even include those from
say Oracle from modifying the preference so that it can continue
I don't know about making it impossible to use unsigned extensions without
recompiling as a security feature, but it could be that Mozilla really just
doesn't want people to see browsers being slowed down by malware extensions
due to users' stupid decisions, being called Firefox. If that's
IceCat has a Windows version :)
I must be missing something. What exactly is the objection here? This issue
doesn't directly impact Trisquel's browser. Is it more along the line that
Mozilla's prohibiting third party plug-ins that don't go through an approval
process? I'm not sure this is an acceptable stance to take. How
Yea- much of what is removed is because there are issues with it as it
relates to freedom. It's not necessarily that it can't be fixed, but there
aren't the resources to fix it. If someone wanted to maintain a Chromium
build that complied with the stance of the Trisquel project then it would
I think you mean Mozilla, as a CORPORATION:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation
That's right. When Chromium was much cleaner and had less features some years
ago it was super fast and that's how it gained its popularity. Nowadays that
isn't true, it's a Ram-eating monster much slower than firefox. It's still a
very nice browser but it's non-free software.
At least you can now nicely recommend non-branded versions of FF...
pity, I used to think mozilla was a good organization... My how the mighty
fall... and in this case they fell really hard on a stone floor.
It seems to me that Mozilla, as an organisation, just keeps getting worse and
worse. I still really like Iceweasel, Icecat and abrowser and if someone is
one a Windoze or Mac I suggest firefox to them over anything else. It is sad
though that Mozilla keeps selling out.
I'm not sure about Chromium, but where I work, both Chrome and Firefox are
installed alongside Internet Explorer to give user choice, and I have noticed
that Firefox has been loading and running significantly faster than Chrome
here as of late.
Actually I think this is, in some way, good news.
There's now an official, Mozilla-made, version of what for all intents and
purposes is really Iceweasel.
And, I guess much less significantly, there'll probably a Windows or OS X
version of it too!
Mozilla will begin requiring all extensions to be signed in order for them to
be installable in Release and Beta versions of Firefox. This will take effect
from Firefox 42 (Read Abrowser 42.) for the in-release versions and Firefox
ESR 45. (Scheduled for March 8,2016.)
Unbranded versions
Anyway nowhere in the page does it say and/or imply that ... which would
involve a license change which is neither mentioned nor implied either.
You are right.
The correct word that fits to the context is may rather than should, which
impose restrictions. However, the use of a generic name
Years ago, there was an issue with Chromium having problems with 3rd party
code licensing even if the browser was under one of the BSD licenses.
Chromium would later be labeled non-free by the Trisquel team even though
Debian and Ubuntu did not.
Is this still an issue? I still find
In addition they should be available in the en-US locale only.My
interpretation is that FF will make an unbranded version of the browser
(which isgood, isn't it?) in en-US.
I'm guessing future versions of Abrowser might be based on this special
version (and maybe Ruben will drop
Its use IS discouraged since the Trisquel devs go out of their way to ignore
it and purge anything related to it. Of course I can always add the Ubuntu
universe repo, but its annoying.
Yeah, though I don't think the lack of libre-addons-only page fro Chromium
should be used against it since should it be made fully, verifiably free, and
enter trisquel's repos (and Parabola's), it shouldn't be long before such an
addons page appears.
Chromium *IS* non-free software.
It installs binary blobs without warning or asking you every time it
launches.
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=786909#5
This shows all the more reason to not use Firefox. I'm sure Abrowser and
IceCat will both be modified appropriately so as to not enforce signature
checking (or maybe have it be an optional thing so that people can decide on
their own), so it's a non-issue in the free world.
28 matches
Mail list logo
