* no opt-out for Australis
* removal of tabs on bottom
* forced signed extensions
* removing option to not retain download history (unless you give up browsing history too)
* bundling of Hello
* bundling of Pocket (requires a lot of effort to disable)
* bundling of DRM web extensions
* bundling ads out of the box (can be disabled fairly easily)
* on and on ... I can't even keep track of it all anymore
However, Australis for example was a large redesign of the UI. I'm not sure how you can support an opt-out, as that would mean supporting two codebases - two different and separate UIs, at once.
Regarding bundling of DRM, it isn't bundled, but it is downloaded on demand. This is a sad thing even so, but Google, Microsoft and Netflix just left other browsers no choice when they invented, standardized and shipped EME DRM. Mozilla fought DRM, but lost.
However, the Australis case is much more complicated. An UI is tons of code, if Mozilla opted too maintain two different codebases they would need to update both everytime they added a new feature. This would be a maintenance nightmare, to say at least. I think it's ok to have this feature as a separate extension, maintained by people that actually care about the older interface.
I really don't think burying an opt-out option justifies these things.
This is the same tactic used to push malware in installers, Ubuntu's farming your search results to Amazon, and many of the new Windows 10 privacy intrusions. "You can opt-out (if you know you need to (and you know where to look (and you know about the gotchas like it only applying to enterprise customers)))"
If they were honest, these things would be opt-in. But they're not, because that wouldn't make them their money. (and if you really believe someone at Mozilla isn't getting paid for Pocket integration, then I have a bridge to sell you.)
Isn't it frustrating when a major software vendor takes a product you rely on, updates the whole UI in a way that makes the product worse for you and many other people using the desktop version primarily in order to try to make it better for the tiny number of people using the mobile version, and then makes clear that if you don't go for their new version you'll also miss out on critical bug fixes and security updates for the old one within a few months?
I'm not disagreeing with your point, but can't you use the Firefox LTS releases for that exact reason?
And Firefox 24 is missing a whole lot of really critical functionality.
You really have no choice but to trust the random third-party developer of Classic Theme Restorer not to do anything malicious, and pray that he doesn't ever quit.
The irony of my previous post is that both Microsoft and Mozilla seem to be playing the same game now, right down to sub-year "long term" support. You can't really choose whether to have those updates any more, only to defer them for a short while. Anything more than that, and you just have to give up on updating altogether, security updates included, and for a new OS that is even more dangerous than it is for a browser.
I'm already to the point where I don't web surf on my primary development box, outside of localhost (site dev work.)
As long as your firewall seals off all unrequested external traffic (easy with pf), and you don't run untrusted desktop applications, then the only real attack vector is through your browser.
I do want to point out that the OpenType issue you mentioned is really an OS bug rather than a browser one, though. It's a good demonstration that ultimately any OS facility that is used by browsers is a potential vulnerability, and crucially it's a cross-browser vulnerability and therefore more attractive to attackers.
What I'd really like is for all my platform software -- OS, browsers, language runtimes and the like -- to focus on stability and quality, with new features taking a secondary role. But I guess that doesn't sell new and shiny to customers^Wconsumers with an Internet-era attention span. :-(
None of this enhanced anyone's productivity: it was change for the sake of change. That sort of thing is fine, but you should always offer a simulation of the behavior people are used to when you have millions of users. And if you don't have the manpower, then maybe reconsider making unnecessary changes in the first place ... nobody was abandoning Firefox because its UI stayed the same. Microsoft understood this at least until Windows 7, which you could easily make look and feel very much like Windows 95. But sadly the new trend in tech is to constantly force superfluous UI redesigns on users all the time with no opt-out. You see it with Google Mail, Skype, Windows, iOS, Android, Firefox, Gnome 3, on and on.
It's not just people hating change: there are people with disabilities that learn how to use this software, and changing things because some designer decided the UI "needed a refresh" can really destroy someone's entire workflow.
It would have even been okay if they had made it a bit more flexible in configuration, but they didn't. We lost a lot of control over how the UI operates. And so now I have to use yet another extension (Classic Theme Restorer), which is a bit buggy and might be discontinued at any point in the future.
And thanks for the correction on the DRM. But I wouldn't say they lost, I'd say they caved in. They weren't forced to support it, they chose to for the sake of their market share.
But other people felt the look was dated, and well over-due for a refresh. I guess the Firefox developers were in that group.
Is the UI of a piece of software actually a fashion statement?
Should these decisions not be evidence based in some way?
(I use Firefox 39 on Linux and have no strong opinions either way - just interested in the process)
Also, user interfaces might be closer to fashion than you would think! If you consider Windows XP's look. Imagine Windows 10 looking like that. Or consider Windows 8's different looks compared to Windows 7's. Or Google "material design" on Android Lollipop. Dang, this is exactly like fashion! :D
http://design.canonical.com/2013/08/usability-testing-how-do...
Some criticisms of Mozilla are fair (even if blown out of proportion, like the Pocket issue), but one can not expect a project to make development even more complex by adding a "revert it because this one guy doesn't like it" button for each change or feature.
As one of most obvious examples (unrelated to Mozilla or Microsoft): there are uncountably many custom Android ROMs out there, left abandoned. And most were merely cosmetic changes or even packaging (like inclusion or removal of certain pieces by default). Usually, unless luck is that there's a large social momentum and a lot of advertising among same-minded people, fork maintainer struggles for a few versions then gives up and surrenders to the upstream way of thinking. Sad but true.
As a software dev that's received plenty of criticism as well, I'll just say that when I post detailed complaints about things I don't like, it's not because I want to harm or destroy their software. If I truly hated their software, I wouldn't be using it or talking about it at all. For all of Mozilla's faults, the only real cross-platform alternative (Chrome) is even worse. That one forces silent updates, won't let me download and run older versions, won't let me disable WebRTC, was the inspiration for the new Mozilla UI I dislike, sends a lot of data back to Google, etc.
The problem with not complaining is that when everyone does it, the developers have no idea why 30% of their market share is gone, yet everyone who remained is still happy with the changes.
Further, I think really major software projects like Firefox and Gnome are in a different category. People's livelihoods depend on these software programs. Totally changing things around can have serious effects on people, not just those who hate change.
It's one thing to be a single developer working on a solitaire game and deciding to redesign everything; it's quite another to be a multi-million dollar company with hundreds of employees and tens of millions of users and deciding to redesign everything.
When you care about your market share, have employees that depend upon your success, and so forth ... you really should make the effort to listen to your community of users.
And let's not forget the whole reason we're having this discussion is because Mozilla just berated Microsoft for removing user choice. If you're going to criticize someone for their faults that you're every bit as guilty of, you should expect to be called out on your hypocrisy.
It is a tricky issue and the comparison with GNOME is apt. At the end of the day, the last word belongs to the companies and individuals actually doing the work. We on the outside can still try to convince them, of course.
Microsoft is in a different league with Windows 10, however. This was what they dreamed of 15 years ago. Once you install Windows 10, it's no longer your PC, it is Microsoft's.
You can't choose to avoid an update.
* change your settings
* farm your compute cycles
* put in advertising
* install a pay gate to charge you per logon
* read your files
* add key loggers
* change your settings at their whim
They'll be able to do any of this whenever they want because YOU, the former owner of the machine, will not be allowed to circumvent or opt-out of "updates."
You haven't upgraded to the latest version of Office? Too bad, we're turning the one you have off.
We just signed a deal with a third party, so that video editing software that used to come with Windows... gone, but feel free to pay for that third party package in the app store.
We noticed you have some MP3 files that we didn't put on your machine. They'll have to go, or you can license them through us.
We're enhancing your security by removing Google Chrome... you see they didn't comply with our updated code signing policies. Sorry.
The last few hiccups with Mozilla are them being the Diet Coke of Evil in comparison.
Technically correct I guess. However: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigation
Until recently, Microsoft wasn't really dealing with their users' data. This requires that you trust them. Personally I trust them just enough to use their OS (or rather, I rely on the fact that they know people watch closely what Windows does), but I definitely don't trust them to keep my data.
More precisely I don't trust them (or any other company) when they say they won't sell my data, or spy on me, or use my data against me. Because, when you think about it, there is absolutely no way to verify that they keep their word.
I don't know why it's acceptable for software to treat all of its users as lazy and ignorant, even if most actually are. All that's going to do is encourage them to find ever new and amazing ways to be even more lazy and ignorant.
Sure, botnets suck, but it's not worth giving up control over our desktops to stop them.
A lazy person won't do anything more difficult or time consuming than the easiest choice available, and an ignorant person might not even realize there are other choices. So make the easiest and default choice do the thing that is "best" for everyone.
> Sure, botnets suck, but it's not worth giving up control over our desktops to stop them.
I used to agree, but am no longer convinced of this, at least personally. I use Windows and OSX daily, and feel a hell of a lot more secure about my OSX machine. I'd give up some control of my Windows machine to not always assume everything is or will likely be infected at some point, by a known or unknown cause, detected or not detected.
Not to say that OSX cannot be attacked, it definitely can, but overall.. there's little comparison. the relative ease of updates & upgrades, high adoption rates, a very nice app store full of sandboxed apps; it's just a much safer place.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_SQL_Database
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Native_Client
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dart_(programming_language)
Yep. I recognise that this may not have been a winnable fight, but I absolutely judge the people who were on the other side.
WebSQL was a much better tech than IndexedDB. Was the dependence on Sqlite problematic? Sure. But Mozilla had the resources to make a pretty good try at fixing it; instead they refused to even implement it and gave us the relatively terrible IndexedDB instead. Which, in turn, Apple has refused to implement[1], and now here we are. Thanks Moz[2].
(I'm less concerned about NaCL and Dart, because it's less clear to me that these were obviously superior technologies that obviously needed cross-browser adaption. You're certainly right that the pattern is suggestive though.)
[1]: Yeah, I know, they claim to have implemented it. Anyone who's tried to use their implementation will recognise this claim as a subtle joke. On us.
[2]: Their blog post justifying themselves[3] has not aged well. I especially love the bit where they say IndexedDB is better than WebSQL because it has better "developer aesthetics", as if anyone is actually casually coding against IndexedDB without using some sort of wrapper or compatibility layer. Or as if anyone actually likes the IndexedDB syntax and API.
[3]: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2010/06/beyond-html5-database-apis...
I agree the situation sucks, but I'm not sure how to fix it even today.
First, keep in mind that lot of this decision was political; if Mozilla had lobbied for it a lot of fudging could have been done. Instead Mozilla made sure that a strict reading of the rules was used by which, yes, WebSQL clearly failed.
And no, Mozilla probably didn't have the resources to implement SQLite from scratch, but:
1. They could have worked with others. Apple, quite clearly, was much more invested in WebSQL than IndexedDB. Could they have contributed to a join effort? We'll never know.
2. In particular, the rule about needing two seperate implementations is good, but it could have been fudged here; a bigger problem was the lack of a spec beyond "whatever Sqlite does". Did Mozilla have the resources to clearly specify how a reference implementation should work, even if the only actual implementation remained Sqlite? Maybe. Would that have been enough? Arguably.
3. In the event, IndexedDB was not a real replacement for WebSQL; at most it was an important tool that could be used to build one, some day; a process that is still ongoing (eg, with PouchDB) and has no real end in site. Even if we lacked the resources to really bring WebSQL up to par and re-implement Sqlite from scratch, we apparently lack the resources to bring IndexedDB up to par too. If we're doomed to spend years struggling with broken implementations and poor browser support either way, what did we gain with IndexedDB?
Like I said, I don't know that there was a good solution to this. But I feel like Mozilla helped ensure we got a bad one.
The rule of having multiple implementations is an important one.
And it might have been possible - surely Google and Microsoft, who supported IndexedDB, had the resource to write an alternative implementation. I don't know the history enough to know why they didn't.
The best retelling of events, I think, is this one: http://nolanlawson.com/2014/04/26/web-sql-database-in-memori...
Has some very good details. And it's certainly funny to see what was said during the discussion with how things turned out in practice.
Edit: I'd sum it up as "Google and Apple argue for a solution that will work on mobile; Mozilla and Oracle don't care about mobile, are weirdly obsessed with the idea that developers hate SQL, and use political manoeuvring to win the fight". (Oracle's role in this seems especially odd, but perhaps they had some longer term strategy in mind.) In any case, in retrospect ignoring mobile was a bad idea, and ditching SQL seems to have had no real benefit.
It does show the total need for a fast, JITable intermediate language, and the silliness in not having one from the start, or at least long, long ago.
Not entirely true either. From the link:
> Hixie has said before he’s willing to fully spec the SQL dialect used by [WebSQL]. But since Mozilla categorically refuses to implement the spec (apparently regardless of whether the SQL dialect is specified), he doesn’t want to put in the work since it would be a comparatively poor use of time.
If you don't want to just use Sqlite (understandable), and you don't want to write something that is as good as Sqlite (also understandable), then you're going to have a crap database implementation. There's just not a lot of other options there. Jonas' comment just reiterates the lack of choices.
But given the three bad choices, the question does arise: Was IndexedDB really the best of a bad lot? In 2009, a lot of very optimistic things were said about IndexedDB performance, adoption, usage on mobile, developer acceptance. It's been 6 years, and I think it's safe to say that IndexedDB hasn't lived up to anyone's hopes.
Even in that article, the a dev says he's queried the SQLite version in order to detect which exact FT options are available.
The argument for it is basically "eh but it's handy", ignoring the idea of the Web.
When there is just a single codebase, even if it is open source, it isn't a standard. Now, not everything needs to be a standard, but on the web standardization is a big part of why it is so successful.
One example of why a single codebase is bad: Imagine that SQLite version X is the implementation of WebSQL, which all browsers must use. SQLite development is of course continuing, fixing security issues and making it faster, etc. Will browsers just keep using SQLite past version X? What if the SQLite community takes SQLite in a direction that isn't optimal for web browsers? Perhaps web browsers will fork it. What if browsers end up not agreeing on the fork, and some use the original project, and others use the fork - or there are multiple forks?
All of that makes it very risky that compatibility issues will appear between browsers. Having a properly specced standard, with multiple compatible implementations, is so far the best way that we have found that can prevent such things.
It doesn't matter how developers choose to use IndexedDB, what does is for a Web standard to be sane and WebSQL never was. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9978713
"asm.js over NaCl (which v8 team as shown doesn't require a special compiler mode to optimize for)"
I don't see how not requiring a special compiler is an argument against it.
"ES5/ES5.1/ES6/ES7 language bloat over Your-Choice-Of-JS-Successor language or actually fixing the issues with JS"
ES5/ES5.1/ES6/ES7 ARE efforts to fix issues with JS and mostly driven by Mozilla.
NaCl isn't portable (Mozilla is working on Web Assembly)
Dart excerpt taken from Dart FAQ; question: "Will the Dart VM get into Chrome?" response: "No. Dart is designed to compile to JavaScript to run across the modern web, and the dart2js compiler is a top priority for the team." [1]
[0] http://www.w3.org/TR/webdatabase/#web-sql
[1] https://www.dartlang.org/support/faq.html#q-will-the-dart-vm...
Before this, before Blink forked WebKit, Apple rejected naive DartVM pre-integration changes for the same reason:
https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2011-December/...
Whining for the poor Google-Goliath, blaming little Mozilla-David, is rich. No comment on the Pocket deal or other recent Mozilla changes. On this tangent about Dart, I'm happy that Chrome people prevailed.
I'm not. We are sentenced for another 20+ yrs for lang with broken 'this' pointer
'this' in JS is misleading and confusing - IMHO it's broken design
Enough with pulling victim-faces! :-P.
Your words do nothing to address the very real technical problems that kept DartVM out of Chrome.
Stop personalizing everything and study the link I cited.
"The issue here isn't "can we make multiple vms live in webkit" it's "can we expose multiple languages to the web", to the former i say obviously as we already do, to the latter I say that we don't want to."
The general tone Oliver had was akin to saying only little-endian machines should be supported on the Web. Not because of some technically proven deficiency in the idea of allowing big-endian machines, but because "we don't want to." I can only imagine if such logic had been applied to other parts of the Web. Technical problems always have a solution.
[0] https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2011-December/...
There are not multiple GC'ed VMs in Safari sharing the DOM, so I bet Oliver was talking about things like JSC as another way to script Apple stuff than Obj-C (now Swift). But that's not material to the DartVM/OilPan vs. Chrome issue.
Java runs as a plugin, like Flash. It has no deep DOM integration.
Both Java and Flash have become security problems, so they're in various penalty boxes, beyond the plugin prison.
Back in 1995, when I did JS in the shadow of Java, as a sidekick Robin-the-boy-hostage language, I did the primordial DOM too. Java was in only applets then -- pretty much the same as a plugin. We did connect JS and Java via LiveConnect, which led to the JRI (Warren Harris at Netscape), which led to the JNI. To solve the GC problem, the JRI user had to manage handles for global and local roots.
This did not solve the inter-heap cycle problem, however. Netscape never implemented a cycle collector, but we did at Mozilla, based on [Bacon & Rajan, 2001]. It was required for C++ and JS cycle collection. Around that time, IE would still leak memory if you made a C++/JS cycle by capturing certain global object property references in closures. Their C++ side used COM reference counting, so once the cycle closed through JScript, there was no way to drop the cycle-internal refcount.
Mozilla's C++/JS cycle collector was originally meant to handle C-Python too (and possibly other languages with full XPCOM/DOM access), since we had an optional integration of that engine, courtesy Mark Hammond of Active State. But both the C-Python integration and the polyglot support in the CC got ripped out. Browsers cannot afford overhead, even mostly-dead (but still hazardous in the 0day sense) code.
(Updated to note that LiveConnect is long-gone too. Java is just a plugin.)
I suspect you still have not read Filip Pizlo's post at that lists.webkit.org link I left, or the paper it references. Please take more time to study problems before casting aspersions!
DartVM never had a chance, I told 'em so and gave concrete reasons why it didn't. Worse, the leaked DASH memo was arrogant and wrong in declaring that JS "cannot be fixed by evolving the language". Anders Hejlsberg gently pushed back against that bogus assertion in 2012:
https://channel9.msdn.com/Shows/Going+Deep/Anders-Hejlsberg-...
and events have proven him correct.
Read the leaked DASH memo if you haven't yet:
via
http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/4355
(Note that Mark Miller did not write this memo, he just accidentally posted it to a public Google Group thinking that group was private to Google employees.)
A lot of water under the bridge since 2010, and some of it had good effects for Dart users for sure, even with Dart now only a compile-to-JS language. But a lot was wasted. Dart could have used bignums (Dart `int` support) in ES6, for example, and this would have helped JS users too. The lack of it is a direct cost of focusing on DartVM at the expense of dart2js; see
https://github.com/dart-lang/sdk/issues/1533
You are right that I disliked the stinky politics and enormous question-begging on display in the DASH memo. (That's me disliking a set of bad arguments, not me disliking Dart.) It was a statement of intent, to fund a project because some people of note wanted to do that project, even if it wouldn't work cross-browser, and even if it imposed high opportunity cost to JS both in Chrome (the whole V8 team had to be reconstituted in Munich) and in Ecma TC39 (no one showed up to argue for better cross-compiling support in general).
WebAssembly should grow dynamic language support for Dart and languages like it, but that's years out. In the mean time, only JS as compile-from-Dart target is available. ES6 could have used the help.
It's fine for well-funded entities to waste money on boondoggles (well, not really, but I was not a shareholder, and Google is free to "experiment" for any reason it pleases). But I'm not obligated to praise a bogus justification when it leaks, or honor the two-faced way that JS was dealt with in the memo, and evident from the direct and opportunity costs of DartVM.
I stand corrected. Yes, I've read all the memos and watched all the videos, including this one when I knew Dart wasn't going to make it into Chrome for the first time. I knew it by Blink engineering lead Darin Fischer's reaction when asked about Dart [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlJob8K_OwE at 17:25] To me it looked like he laughed and sort of scoffed, then he and another member talked Dart down. Maybe it is a failing of mine to look at emotional content when considering issues, but doing so sometimes imparts useful information.
At one point I was passionate about Dart because I thought it hit the sweet spot between JavaScript and Java applets in the browser with optional typing and generics. It turns out TypeScript hit that spot well enough and Anders was right about that.
I understand your frustrations about opportunity costs and lost effort that could have gone into JavaScript, but there is another possibility -- and this is just my opinion, which I voiced at the time -- that the Dart team was more focused on Dart on the server as a Java replacement. This was at a time when Oracle's lawsuit with Google over the Java interfaces was a big question. I thought Dart might be a plan B on the server and why Dart2js was not getting the attention I thought it deserved.
The JavaScript output on the client was unreadable, very large and much of the disdain for Dart from JavaScript devs was for this reason (17000 lines for a "hello world" if I recall correctly - I am not a systems guy but isn't most of that the DartVM translated to JS. Couldn't it be compiled to asm.js and loaded ahead of time if so desired?)
I think we agree on most of this and I apologize. It wasn't my intention to offend you. Dart still has a chance if they can get the translator to ES6 to work, and I don't see why not, so I hope to use Dart when and where it makes sense.
At least the new Dart compiler generates nice JS, and the future efforts on Dart and JS look more aligned. We still don't have a bignum champion in TC39, but we do have great SIMD championing from John McCutchan (who started it) and Daniel Ehrenberg of Google; Dan Gohman of Mozilla; Peter Jensen, et al., of Intel; and others at Microsoft whose names I'm not remembering. This leads to value types as an extension mechanism, so we should get bignums sooner or later.
On whether DartVM was justified as a hedge against Java going away on Google, I've heard that too, but both for Java on the Google server side and for Android Java, I have never seen any evidence to support this notion. I'd want to see an efficient AOT compiler from Java classfiles to Dart, for example. Another example: some convincing work on library/framework parity on the server side to go along with Dart's (very nice) DOM and client side libraries.
Perhaps such work was kept behind firewalls. If instead it was just a case of saying "oh, we may be able to use DartVM if things go south with Oracle", that velleity hardly counts as an intentional, operational Java replacement strategy.
A few days ago, when doing some client-side JS I wanted to use it and I saw that it is not part of a standard, not only that, it has actually been REJECTED. It's really sad to see the development of the language crippled for a reason that basically boils down to "No, because it was proposed by Microsoft".
(I'm still a happy user of firefox. I just care about keeping them accountable.)
Don't be misguided by the administrative setup. Mozilla is earning money from partnerships, but the company goals are driven by the not-for-profit mission statement. It takes resources to stay in the game...