![]() ![]() The worst part: Apparently, they weren’t paid for this it was solely a PR cooperation thing. What does everyone here think? If mozilla came out and said “we can ditch the advertisers, but it means users would have to pay a recurring donation of $x.xx”, then how many users would actually do it? Does the donation business model work without major cutbacks? I had a discussion about this recently with Morgan, and he was bothered that mozilla wasn’t being more upfront about it’s motivations for doing these things. I don’t like that they are messing with FF like this, but I can see why they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Mozilla has millions of users, however they’re not valuable to advertisers unless mozilla can direct traffic to them, which is why they’ve been resetting user preferences and adding new ways to capture users’ attention in the browser. For better or worse, advertisers (including google) make up most of mozilla’s revenue stream. Nah, mozilla is doing this because it needs money, it’s that simple. I would still like to have a link for the Firefox 52.9.Do we know if anyone from Google found their way to Mozilla management?Ĭould be another “Stephen Elop at Nokia” situation. No idea yet if this has any other effects on the system or on behavior while using the normal user's account. Manually changing these values to "root" allows Firefox to launch normally. Viewed the Permissions of the "/root" folder and found the ownership and group was set to the normal user's account. Perfectly happy to keep using that version. ![]() Is there a copy of the Q4OS installer for Firefox 52.9.0esr still to be found somewhere? That version doesn't have this problem (verified on an Orion machine I set up a while back), and it's also still compatible with legacy extensions. Full of people not answering the question and scolding the person who asked it rather than helping them. That thread you linked is a good example of the cancer I'm talking about. I would think that when one is logged in as root one should not have to use sudo to execute a command, but it's been a while since I did much in the way of things like this. Not to tell me "you can't do that." Never once in those 25 years have I "broken" anything by running as "root" on Linux or as "Administrator" on Windows. And from that I have a simple expectation - when I issue a command (especially on the command line, and especially when logged in as root) I expect it to be obeyed. Whatever happened to expecting users to actually learn about what they are doing, and learn what to do and what NOT to do, rather than "sheltering" them from any danger? I started my computing experience over 25 years ago, in DOS, before Windows 95 even existed. ![]() But in the end it's their machine, and it's their choice, and if they break it then it's on them. So fine, tell people it's not a good idea IF you don't know what you're doing. Putting in force all of these restrictions on the root account and creating artificial hoops for people to jump through to do this or that is utterly ridiculous. Trying not to go on too much of a rant here, but this "nannyism" is a cancer. PaleMoon does not have this problem, and I know it forks from the Firefox 52.9.0esr codebase. I wonder what version begins this rubbish. I already was coming to despise Firefox due to some of the decisions they have been making lately, and this could well be the last straw. Some of the searching I did on this yesterday seems to indicate that Firefox may now even be coded to behave this way. I want to run one browser as root on a few selected sites, but want Firefox and others to run as the user account. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |