ktjfi

They made the same mistake IE made: around Firefox 3, they allowed their browser to become terribly slow, and so Chrome ate their lunch. Because let's be honest, Chrome was and still is so much faster than Firefox, and that's why they won. You could argue that Chrome has infinite ad budget, and that obviously helps, but I'm a Google hater and I'd gladly use Firefox if it was better or at least on par with Chrome, but it's not.

I understand fixing something like that takes a lot of effort, but they lost a lot of time and money in projects that had no chance of working out, such as FirefoxOS (really? making an entire OS using the slowest browser engine that there is on the cheapest ARM hardware they could find?), Hello, Persona, etc. They also abandoned Thunderbird, which I will never forgive, the same way I will never forgive Google for abandoning Reader. Servo is a nice project but the chances it will be abandoned after years in development are over the roof.

So now they are focused on their privacy improvements, but they can't stop shooting themselves in the foot (sending your browsing history to the advertisement company Cliqz, remotely installing an addon to advertise the Mr. Robot show, installing Pocket by default...)

Then, if it is slower, and they don't seem to be able to take my privacy seriously despite their claims to the contrary, why in hell should I use Firefox?

I also blame the Mozilla Corporation for that: including WebKit in your software is a piece of cake. So that's what the default browsers of GNOME/KDE/etc do. Gecko not so much (in fact, has there been any effort in this arena, after XULRunner was discontinued?)

You better arrange for your suicide, because it seems inevitable. The terrible mismanagement of the Mozilla Corporation is to blame.

Isn't that what they already do?

While real problems are largely ignored, stupid stuff like this takes up all the airtime and moves a sizable amount of votes. Democracy is just a way of keeping the masses docile.

Having a monopoly is not illegal. Using your monopoly to do things you can't do if you're not a monopoly can be illegal depending on the circumstances.

>With everything that is going on with open source licensing

What exactly is going on with open source licencing? Is anybody violating open source licences?

If you were the author of a GPL piece of code whose licence was violated, and the EFF came to you and said "we'll pay for the lawyers and in exchange we get publicity", most people would say yes.

Use Gentoo to mix versions any way you want.

So like in any other country? Except for the forbidding, of course.

Why not?

The article mentions he's made attempts to fix some of those issues and the problems he's encountered.

All mails I've sent to maintainers of packages regarding issues with them have been ignored. I think they prefer you to use the bug tracker. (Which sucks, so I always end up doing nothing about it.)

In the end I switched all my servers to Ubuntu. It's been good and I love PPAs.

You're the guy behind i3? Thank you very much. I love it.

Sending a curl to an endpoint from the client is not push but pull. The idea of push notifications is that they arrive immediately.

You can configure it locally in your kernel, but your ISP will most likely close your connections for you, especially if you're behind a CGNAT.

So that's why so many companies say they use Python? So their competitors become stupidly slow?

I mean, if you want to say something as controversial as that, and you decide to wait until more people say it first, you may have to wait a lifetime.

(Once again, I haven't looked at the data, so I don't necessarily agree with what he said.)

On one hand, in this political climate it's really stupid to say something like that. On the other, someone has to be the first person to say it.

(Not that I necessarily agree with what he said)

Maybe in the rich countries of the EU.

It's not only about being closed source. They are also not in the EU, and they are a for-profit (an Aktiengesellschaft).

The only reason I don't use them is because to get the full experience (IMAP, especially) I need to pay them... Now I have to pay them, and I don't even get to enjoy the product. Thanks EU! :P

That reminds me of myself. I remember when I moved from screen to tmux and the default "master" key changed from ^A to ^B. All the time lost changing it back to ^A in .tmux.conf. In the end I simply got used to ^B and that's what I have.

I've gone as far as to open bug tickets for open source projects arguing that the defaults should be changed so I don't have to configure as much software when I move to another computer :D

>Yup, they do. Most of the Google engineers I know who live in the Mission have been mugged or had their car/house broken into at least once. You just learn to not carry a lot of money or expensive stuff with you.

It's incredible that this could ever be considered "normal". And all in the name of political correctness, no less.

I guess the signatures are there in case someone complains? They can just pull the check and see if the signature is legit. But checking every signature is simply too much work.

Isn't a.out the default output format of gcc? I think if you type "gcc myfile.c" you get an a.out executable.

They simply don't want to read any bug reports from Firefox users because they don't want to support that browser.

If they constantly say they are using Skype it's because they are being paid to say so, not because they are actually using Skype (which they could be, of course).

Not supporting Safari is weird, but not supporting Firefox is perfectly normal, given that it's at a whopping 4.46% of market share in the US.

Edge will start using WebKit... I mean Blink, so it's not an unrelated party anymore.