It still does have something: It doesn't help Google spy even more on you. It's not made by a megacorp.
Granted, most people don't care about those but I do. Anyway, I agree that the huge amount and great addons Firefox has will be a huge loss
The justification they've given for removing classic extension support is that they depend too much on the internals of Firefox, for the same reason they also said they're a security risk.
They are valid technical reasons. Most people would agree that making extensions use a stable API decoupled from the browser's internals is a good thing for stability and compatibility in the long run.
But, and this is a very big but, that means many popular current extensions can't just be made to work with the new APIs. Also, the ones that can be adapted will probably need a good amount of work. The result is that many extension developers have said they will abandon their extensions.
Also, since those powerful extensions are one of the reasons many people keep using Firefox that will surely suppose a big hit on their maket share and that's the last thing Firefox needs.
Their stated mission is to fight to keep the web open, if nobody uses their browser they'll have no money and no influence and hence they can't fulfill their mission.
I know this must've been a hard decision to make at Mozilla but I feel it's not the right one.
Thank you, but I'm smart enough to avoid it. The same way I can avoid it in Windows. By your username I might think you're a troll but anyways that's what I think
Yep, Android is NOT what we usually know as Linux. It only uses the kernel and some low level libraries. The rest of the system is completely not Linux-like:
The filesystem layout is not like the one Linux uses, it barely uses any of the libraries/programs that we take for granted on a Linux system: Bash, XWindows or Wayland, systemd or sysv init.
I'm surprised I have some of the top 10 since I have relatively little tech books.
I can totally recommend Head first design patterns. Some chapters are a bit repetitive as they explain the specific pattern too many times but it's got a teaching style that makes you think and so the knowledge acquired stays with you.
I can't do it either. I don't even listen to music if I'm doing anything that requires concentration because I can only pay attention to one of the things.
Personally I listen to podcasts on my commute. I use public transportation so I can't concentrate fully on the audio. If you skim the comments you'll see many people also listen when commuting.
I'm all for making the web browser more powerful platforms since that can help us be more independent of any concrete OS but I can't understand why Apple does something like this. I mean, they're one of the companies more intently trying to lock everyone in to their platforms. How does this "open" initiative fit with that?
...provided that the user is informed when a website wants to use it and it's strictly opt in. Firefox works this way regarding sharing of location information.
My point is that everything that lessens the dependence on native apps is good because then it's less difficult to change platforms.
Agree. An OS should be stable, not something updated every few days/weeks.
Also, every update should be well tested not like current Win 10 updates where each one adds 3 new things, fixes 2 bugs and adds 5 more.
That development model might be ok for an unimportant mobile app, an OS is what makes your PC run it must be stable.
To get something like Win 7 you'd also have to remove the following things:
- Ads for Office and Edge built into the OS.
- The infamous telemetry that can't be completely turned off.
- The annoying push to use MS' services (Ms account for login, Cortana, Bing, the Store...)
- The "bug" that resets your default applications to Ms' ones every major update.
- The inability to reject updates.
- The built-for-touch apps that are the defaults (and, in some cases like the Settings app, the only option) even on desktops without touchscreens.
The problem is that we geeks don't have as big an influence as you think. This is proven by the fact that regular users don't care at all about the Apple walled garden and keep buying iPhones by the millions.
Abusing the users only has consequences if a large amount of those users get fed up with it (doesn't seem to be happening either with iOS, Android or Windows 10) and they can migrate to better alternatives. At this point, IMO, there's no good alternative in the mobile space, and in the desktop space your only real alternative is Linux.
I'd really like it to be a mobile OS that gave the user control. A regular Linux with a mobile optimized UI but without any of the limitations iOS, Android and Windows phone impose on users. Alas, at this point in the game it seems very unlikely.
A ver sad state of affairs indeed.
What they will do in Firefox 57 is remove the ability to use the "old-style" extensions. Those could access many of the internals of the browser which is both good (they allow for big changes and neat things) and bad (dependence on internal structures and thus fragility, security issues).
The problem is that the new interface for extensions doesn't allow for many things the old did and thus many existing extensions just can't be replicated with the new API and so will cease to work in the Firefox versions.
From a technical point of view it makes sense what they're doing but for the users and extension developers is murder and so I predict Firefox's market share will suffer
If actually is included in ReactOS.
Well, sort of: ReactOS and Wine already share a lot of code. I believe it's mostly userland DLLs because what's the part that can be shared.
Take into account that both aim (among other things) to implement the Windows APIs but they do it differently:
- WINE on top of Linux APIs.
- ReactOS on top of a Windows NT kernel.
So of course, WINE progress helps ReactOS but the latter also have to implement on their own many os level things (kernel, filesystem support, network stack, USB stack...) that the former doesn't because it takes those services from the underlying OS (Linux or MacOS).
Yeah, we can't trust smartphones either. Apple don't seem to have publicity as their main revenue generator and that's a great thing but they don't even let you install anything from outside their app store.
I understand the point of Android and Win10 but I'd prefer to pay some money and they being a regular, old-style OS, where the owner is king. You know, like Linux, Windows 7 and every "classic" OS.
Hey, MS all I want from you is an OS.
Since Android manufacturers seem in a perpetual spec race and insist in putting these so-high-res-i-can't-see-a-difference screens is nice that they at least offer this option.
I wish I could buy a phone choosing every part: I may be interested in a good CPU but don't care about quadHD res, or I may want a nice back camera but don't care about the front one.
I was under the impression that nowadays there's very little to none low level code in games. Also, most bigger engines support a lot of platforms. I don't think using an ARM CPU makes porting games too difficult.
I meant Android phones in general. Google is the OS maker and forces phone makers to install a lot of Google apps in Android phones. I'd like a Samsung or LG made phone with a "stripped down" Android
Hey Google? How much would you charge for a phone without your services? They can be installed on purchase as long as I'm able to uninstall them.
I have no use for many of Google's apps which come preinstalled and can't be removed, and I'd be happy to get back the storage and battery they use (however little that may be).
I'd be nice if the phone came also with root enabled and was officially supported. I have no problem with not being able to use for payments or other things which require a "secure" or certified phone.
I have, in principle, no problem with the data-driven economy. It's, IMO, a legit option as long as there's also an option to only pay with your money (which, sadly, is becoming less and less common these days).
Yeah, I also want that. Microsoft can only pull this crap because many important pieces of software only run on Windows (obviously, they know).
If 99% of software was cross platform they'd have to give people what they want instead of giving us what Microsoft wants
Slashdot Mirror
It still does have something: It doesn't help Google spy even more on you. It's not made by a megacorp.
Granted, most people don't care about those but I do. Anyway, I agree that the huge amount and great addons Firefox has will be a huge loss
The justification they've given for removing classic extension support is that they depend too much on the internals of Firefox, for the same reason they also said they're a security risk.
They are valid technical reasons. Most people would agree that making extensions use a stable API decoupled from the browser's internals is a good thing for stability and compatibility in the long run.
But, and this is a very big but, that means many popular current extensions can't just be made to work with the new APIs. Also, the ones that can be adapted will probably need a good amount of work. The result is that many extension developers have said they will abandon their extensions.
Also, since those powerful extensions are one of the reasons many people keep using Firefox that will surely suppose a big hit on their maket share and that's the last thing Firefox needs.
Their stated mission is to fight to keep the web open, if nobody uses their browser they'll have no money and no influence and hence they can't fulfill their mission.
I know this must've been a hard decision to make at Mozilla but I feel it's not the right one.
of 5 things Apple claims are obsolete but everybody still uses. Also, they will show the dongles to get those features back.
how about an agreement that forces the OS makers off the user's data? No? You mean you'd have to significantly alter Win 10 to pass those new rules?
Thank you, but I'm smart enough to avoid it. The same way I can avoid it in Windows. By your username I might think you're a troll but anyways that's what I think
Meanwhile in Android all you need to do sideload is check the "allow other sources" box and you can install whatever you want and keep it forever
Yep, Android is NOT what we usually know as Linux. It only uses the kernel and some low level libraries.
The rest of the system is completely not Linux-like: The filesystem layout is not like the one Linux uses, it barely uses any of the libraries/programs that we take for granted on a Linux system: Bash, XWindows or Wayland, systemd or sysv init.
I'm surprised I have some of the top 10 since I have relatively little tech books.
I can totally recommend Head first design patterns. Some chapters are a bit repetitive as they explain the specific pattern too many times but it's got a teaching style that makes you think and so the knowledge acquired stays with you.
I can't do it either. I don't even listen to music if I'm doing anything that requires concentration because I can only pay attention to one of the things.
Personally I listen to podcasts on my commute. I use public transportation so I can't concentrate fully on the audio. If you skim the comments you'll see many people also listen when commuting.
I'm all for making the web browser more powerful platforms since that can help us be more independent of any concrete OS but I can't understand why Apple does something like this. I mean, they're one of the companies more intently trying to lock everyone in to their platforms. How does this "open" initiative fit with that?
...provided that the user is informed when a website wants to use it and it's strictly opt in. Firefox works this way regarding sharing of location information.
My point is that everything that lessens the dependence on native apps is good because then it's less difficult to change platforms.
Agree. An OS should be stable, not something updated every few days/weeks.
Also, every update should be well tested not like current Win 10 updates where each one adds 3 new things, fixes 2 bugs and adds 5 more.
That development model might be ok for an unimportant mobile app, an OS is what makes your PC run it must be stable.
To get something like Win 7 you'd also have to remove the following things:
- Ads for Office and Edge built into the OS.
- The infamous telemetry that can't be completely turned off.
- The annoying push to use MS' services (Ms account for login, Cortana, Bing, the Store...)
- The "bug" that resets your default applications to Ms' ones every major update.
- The inability to reject updates.
- The built-for-touch apps that are the defaults (and, in some cases like the Settings app, the only option) even on desktops without touchscreens.
The problem is that we geeks don't have as big an influence as you think. This is proven by the fact that regular users don't care at all about the Apple walled garden and keep buying iPhones by the millions.
Abusing the users only has consequences if a large amount of those users get fed up with it (doesn't seem to be happening either with iOS, Android or Windows 10) and they can migrate to better alternatives. At this point, IMO, there's no good alternative in the mobile space, and in the desktop space your only real alternative is Linux.
I'd really like it to be a mobile OS that gave the user control. A regular Linux with a mobile optimized UI but without any of the limitations iOS, Android and Windows phone impose on users. Alas, at this point in the game it seems very unlikely.
A ver sad state of affairs indeed.
What they will do in Firefox 57 is remove the ability to use the "old-style" extensions. Those could access many of the internals of the browser which is both good (they allow for big changes and neat things) and bad (dependence on internal structures and thus fragility, security issues).
The problem is that the new interface for extensions doesn't allow for many things the old did and thus many existing extensions just can't be replicated with the new API and so will cease to work in the Firefox versions.
From a technical point of view it makes sense what they're doing but for the users and extension developers is murder and so I predict Firefox's market share will suffer
...in that it has more to do with malware than to an actual OS.
If actually is included in ReactOS.
Well, sort of: ReactOS and Wine already share a lot of code. I believe it's mostly userland DLLs because what's the part that can be shared.
Take into account that both aim (among other things) to implement the Windows APIs but they do it differently:
- WINE on top of Linux APIs.
- ReactOS on top of a Windows NT kernel.
So of course, WINE progress helps ReactOS but the latter also have to implement on their own many os level things (kernel, filesystem support, network stack, USB stack...) that the former doesn't because it takes those services from the underlying OS (Linux or MacOS).
Yeah, we can't trust smartphones either. Apple don't seem to have publicity as their main revenue generator and that's a great thing but they don't even let you install anything from outside their app store.
I understand the point of Android and Win10 but I'd prefer to pay some money and they being a regular, old-style OS, where the owner is king. You know, like Linux, Windows 7 and every "classic" OS. Hey, MS all I want from you is an OS.
Since Android manufacturers seem in a perpetual spec race and insist in putting these so-high-res-i-can't-see-a-difference screens is nice that they at least offer this option.
I wish I could buy a phone choosing every part: I may be interested in a good CPU but don't care about quadHD res, or I may want a nice back camera but don't care about the front one.
I was under the impression that nowadays there's very little to none low level code in games. Also, most bigger engines support a lot of platforms. I don't think using an ARM CPU makes porting games too difficult.
I meant Android phones in general. Google is the OS maker and forces phone makers to install a lot of Google apps in Android phones. I'd like a Samsung or LG made phone with a "stripped down" Android
Thanks for the info. Sadly I don't like the phones Google releases
Hey Google? How much would you charge for a phone without your services? They can be installed on purchase as long as I'm able to uninstall them.
I have no use for many of Google's apps which come preinstalled and can't be removed, and I'd be happy to get back the storage and battery they use (however little that may be).
I'd be nice if the phone came also with root enabled and was officially supported. I have no problem with not being able to use for payments or other things which require a "secure" or certified phone.
I have, in principle, no problem with the data-driven economy. It's, IMO, a legit option as long as there's also an option to only pay with your money (which, sadly, is becoming less and less common these days).
Yeah, I also want that. Microsoft can only pull this crap because many important pieces of software only run on Windows (obviously, they know).
If 99% of software was cross platform they'd have to give people what they want instead of giving us what Microsoft wants
Makes me want to keep writing "F**k you Microsoft" in the Cortana search box over and over. Maybe that way they'll get the message.