this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2023
2004 points (98.3% liked)
Technology
59588 readers
3180 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I actually don't agree, and the reason is - non tech people. You and me can install plugins but ordinary people don't do that. So the default experience must be good, offering improvements to the experience over Google Chrome.
Otherwise all privacy features could also be plugins. Imagine if that was true. Firefox would have no identity and you would have to install plugins and make it your own.
So some features should be built in. Maybe the ability to get pop-ups about false reviews will actually make users go "wow that is so useful".
Compromise: Develop it as a Plugin and then install it by default. That way people who don't want the feature can easily remove it completely. That approach would likely also reduce the number of Firefox forks whose sole purpose is to remove the new features some consider bloat.
That's actually what Firefox usually did for these kind of features. They're usually delayed as system add-ons.
Or make it so that people have a choice to add some of the extension features when installing the browser. Debloating is not fun
Sometimes it feels like debloating is a hobby to people with little to show for it
Well, the whole point of debloating is to end up with little in the way of stuff instead of lots of stuff ;)
I do get that and used to do a lot of it myself, but usually the results are just fairly minor. That's what I meant by it seeming more like a hobby than something hugely beneficial
I suspected so, but the way you worded it was just asking (neigh, demanding) to be "misunderstood" for humouristic purposes :)
I think it's just me not being a native speaker and being lazy with my wording
Not a criticism.
As far as I can tell (not a native speaker myself) it was properly worded and I only acted as if I had misunderstood it for humouristic purposes.
I've done it for actual expressions used by native speakers by simulating language ignorance and interpreting them in a literal way, for fun, just like I did here.
Sorry if it sounded like a criticism - I meant to just take the piss in a friendly way.
No worries, I didn't take it in a bad way
Most people don't want a 45th prompt when they just want to install firefox to check facebook and their mail
True, also wouldn't be too much work. Just some additional dialogues on first start up asking you which plugins you'd like installed
Good solution, perhaps two simple options at browser install: Default / Custom. That way you don't have to uninstall all the stuff at the end.
Probably handle it similarly to how Chrome handles an extension asking for new permissions. It disables the add-on and gives the user a small non-intrusive notification on the options menu. Opening the notification notified the user about the change in permissions and asks them if they want to re-enable the add-on or remove it from Chrome.
Now, let's talk about adblockers... Oh, wait, Google would get upset if FF had an inbuilt adblocker and could stop giving us those $weet money...
If Google stopped sponsoring, Mozilla would go down and Google would get slammed with anti-monopoly lawsuits from the EU.
So Mozilla can do whatever they want and Google won't stop sending them money. Since that is a lot more profitable in the long run.
So... What are they waiting for? Are they going to rely on gorhill for ever?
You want Mozilla choosing what gets blocked?
Sure, as long as we still have options to disable their blocker and use a 3rd party one if we choose. It's astounding how many users don't bother to install an adblocker and it would be a massive improvement for those users who don't know better.
There's been more than one occasion that I've used a family member's PC and they have Firefox installed without a single extension, they didn't even know that extensions existed.
Use LibreWolf. It's Firefox with pre-installed uBlock Origin and pre-configured privacy settings. It also doesn't have any of the Firefox bloat like Pocket
No way I'm giving market share to gecko and, thus, to Mozilla. I just point how how hypocrite they are. I'll keep satisfyingly using Brave.
Blockers need to be an extension, keeps everyone honest.
Reminds me of gnome.