Did they actually say that?

I think we need to Wait and See, to give the ad company the benefit of the doubt. And by “the ad company,” I’ll let you figure out whether I’m referring to Mozilla or Google.

Why are you applying the Wait And See philosophy to Firefox but not to Chrome?

Seems a bit… Reactionary.

Based on the content of that article, the problem is not that DRM is currently in Firefox, but the process by which DRM became mandatory in browsers to begin with.

Second ad company, if you count FakeSpot selling private data to other ad providers!

And those are probably the "anything"s they would rather not respond to.

deleted by creator

The trouble with “wait and see” is that people will often forget what we were waiting for.

Speaking of which, do you remember FakeSpot? That was Mozilla’s first foray into directly selling private data to ad companies. At the time, a lot of people said, “they might allow it now, but let’s wait and see.”

And today, Mozilla FakeSpot continues selling data to ad companies.

It’s a shame Mozilla hasn’t added a way to put custom widgets in the New Tab Page. It’s relatively inconsequential compared to the whole Mozilla situation, but in a perfect world, I think it would be nice to have.

It’s the simplicity of the whole thing. It’s got features, but they’re laid out in a way that is is simple to work with, even for developers.

If it makes you feel better, donations wouldn’t go to Firefox development anyway, and they never have.

(I believe you can donate directly to SeaMonkey, and that they receive a couple million dollars in donations every year. But don’t quote me on that.)

It feels like they heard about what Bill Gates did to Paul Allen and decided to replicate it.

It’s really disheartening. Among other things, Steve fought against the firing of employees in general because Mozilla was actually turning a profit under his leadership.

Based on this and a couple Reddit threads I have since uncovered, he seems like a generally upstanding guy. And he’s on Mastodon, @[email protected]

You assumed and misinterpreted everything you could assume and misinterpret in order to paint standard notes in the best possible light.

the old approach wasn’t very secure or scalable?

No, the older approach was more scalable, and they made it more difficult to do

95-99% of the Javascript that has ever run in your browser is open source frameworks or packages

No, I was not talking about frameworks.

Your response was so offbase and full of assumptions that I simply edited my original post.

All FOSS projects have a team of dictators…

And the Standard Notes team makes a lot of bad choices that make self-hosting harder.

“Just fork it and make your own” is a Hail Mary response… Because most people cannot.

I think you can add your own money into Brave to tip people extra.

And the biggest difference is…

• Brave sold itself on this as a feature since day one
• Brave had the audience who wanted this
• The Brave software is a known factor; what’s going to happen to Firefox is unknown.

I don’t like to speculate, but I think it was mental illness, which may have started during the CopperheadOS days (the predecessor to Graphene).

Unfortunately, that does call into question the recommendations on that page, which I already had a little worry about because Vanadium is their thing, of course they’re going to recommend it.

But I do genuinely want to know how significant of a risk this lack of isolation and sandboxing causes.

I too have a hard time telling whether the isolation features is a huge security risk or a minor one because things get too technical too quickly for me to follow.

Case in point, this website makes it sound relatively trivial just due 8 how technical it is (Ctrl+F for Firefox)

https://grapheneos.org/usage#web-browsing

Fun fact: Cliqz also developed a search engine, which later got purchased by Brave and renamed Brave Search.

Standard Notes wants to charge you money to run open source JavaScript code, including other people’s markdown and spreadsheet editors, on your own server. To do this, they go out of their way to make self-hosting harder.

1. Standard Notes went out of their way to make it harder to self-host extensions a couple years ago, which IMO was pretty tasteless on its own. Instead of letting you install a single bundle of extensions with one URL, you would have to manually add each extension and then manually update it later.

2. They opted for charging for other people’s work. Their editor extensions were other people’s work. For example, their rich text editor was somebody else’s rich text editor with a thin wrapper that allowed it to run in Standard Notes. (Using so many other people’s editors also led to a bit of a lack of stylistic direction.)

3. And then, more recently, they decided to shut off web app access to third-party servers entirely.

“FOSS” only means so much when they dictate what goes into the source code. Unfortunately.

Recently, I’ve been getting a lot of ads injected in one particular Firefox profile. All I have to do to make it go away (for now) is to switch to a different tab container.

But this is Google rolling out anti-ad-blocking technology and testing the waters. So your mileage may vary.

Yes, but it’s not very easy. I used ViolentMonkey with this userscript.

Edit: your method is really cool too

Personally I disagree with the conclusions stated by the blog post, but I can respect the reasoning for getting there, and I can draw my own conclusions from it myself.