Firefox

17804 readers

132 users here now

A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

170

Firefox 124.0 Release Notes (www.mozilla.org)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Ethos is crucial to code recommendations.

If Mozilla included a virus in Firefox, I wouldn't be suggesting bugfixes to make the virus more user friendly. I would point to the general ethos to not build viruses into their software.

And because Mozilla promises an open Web where you make the choices, hardcoding an addon that promotes the three biggest retailers and a handful of paying advertisers is antithetical to that ethos too.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

If Mozilla included a virus in Firefox, I wouldn’t be suggesting bugfixes to make the virus more user friendly. I would point to the general ethos to not build viruses into their software.

The technical problem (i.e. the one relevant to the dev team) is how the virus got into the release product. If it was intentional, it's a management problem and there's no point in talking to the dev team further. If it was due to a breach in their infrastructure, then it absolutely is relevant to discuss w/ the dev team to ensure the breach is contained and fixed.

hardcoding an addon that promotes...

This again can be split into two groups:

technical - opt-in vs opt-out may be a technical decision the devs can make; if it's opt-out, whether it collects information by default may be a dev decision
management - whether it should be hard-coded, opt-in vs opt-out, collect user data or not, etc; there's no point in discussing these with the dev team once it's clear it's not their choice

Target the complains at the right group.