[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 19:04:39 +0000
mr meowski <mr.meowski@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello mr,
>I'm really interested in why you both have this stance towards Firefox.
Firefox has a tendency to hide some things from the user (probably for
'their own safety'):
Take the site https://www.streetmap.co.uk, for example.
Pale Moon won't connect due to security issues. Konqueror won't
connect for the same reason. Firefox connects.
Firefox will silently drop to less and less secure protocols until it
gets a connection. This is piss-poor. It cons users into thinking they
have a secure connection when they don't. Yes, I know about "the
padlock", but really, who looks at that? Never mind understand what it's
telling them.
>Or Mozilla specifically perhaps? You are far from the only ones with
Mozilla are getting arrogant:
"Trust us, we know what we're doing" is an attitude that as often as not
ends with a company going tits up.
To use flash, the protocol has to be enabled the first site you visit any
site that requires it - flash *cannot* be always on any more. Yes, I
know flash is unsafe(0) but hey, as we've already found out, so's Ff.
Mozilla have teamed up with Chrome (a google product) for Web Extension
(WE) compatibility. Sure, XUL could be a pain in the ass, but it was
far, *far* more capable than WE is.
The 'more secure' argument I've heard some put forward doesn't really
hold up either, considering the protocol issue discussed above, and
footnote(1). Also, all WE does is stop extensions altering the
*appearance* of Ff - what goes on under the hood (sending stacks of
information to dubious servers for nefarious purposes) is still entirely
possible - as evidenced by what happened when Stylish got updated a
while ago(2).
Of course Mozilla has the right to do whatever it feels is appropriate,
and I will strongly defend their right to do so, even when I clearly
disagree with their choices. Obviously, I won't continue to use their
stuff.
(0) Pretty much everything can be done in HTML5 anyway, I know. Even
so, there are still sites that use flash.
(1) One extension changed the colour of the background of the URL bar to
indicate how secure the site was - strongly green, secure; light green,
okay; pink, be wary; strongly red, very insecure. WE killed that
extension.
(2) After the update, many users noticed Ff being rather sluggish. It
turned out Stylish's developers had loaded their product to send data to
tracking and advert generating companies. There is no doubt they were
paid handsomely to do it (it's happened many times). Very quickly
alternative engines were created to replace Stylish, since that can no
longer be trusted. Thankfully, there are people out there that really
do have the good of the community at heart.
--
Regards _
/ ) "The blindingly obvious is
/ _)rad never immediately apparent"
Where will you be when the bodies burn?
The Gasman Cometh - Crass
Attachment:
pgpbQjcwGcGc0.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG https://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq