Correlation does not imply causation. And in this case, it seems like there are pretty good candidates for the common cause. And the article even recognises that - the headline is clickbait.
Not for ever - they are working on a method of doing bridge-based WebRTC which is nevertheless end-to-end secure - see https://datatracker.ietf.org/w... . AIUI, the way it works is that it established point-to-point encrypted tunnels between the endpoints for key distribution so the bridge isn't able to decrypt the data even if it wanted to, and yet, you don't need N->N transmission of streams.
WebRTC-based services, in the form of e.g. https://meet.jit.si/, are end-to-end secure and decentralised. Not sure if Windows Phone has any browser which supports WebRTC, though.
It a load of rubbish from the original author. There's no reason whatsoever that loss of this data would cause problems in IE or Edge. Removing roots from MS's program doesn't happen without human input.
"What I don't understand (and maybe because I haven't looked too hard) is what "Old POS terminals" have to do with Mozilla."
The certificates they are using chain up to publicly-trusted roots, and so are covered by Mozilla's policies. In 20-year hindsight, that was a bad idea, but it was a decision taken a long time ago.
The code for the DRM module Firefox uses is not part of the Firefox build system, but is downloaded at runtime. This can be done whether it's a Firefox built by Mozilla or not. So the DRM question has no bearing on whether you can call your version Firefox or not.
This series of blog posts: http://blog.gerv.net/2010/01/p... explains why Mozilla doesn't let just anyone call their modified version "Firefox".
CAs normally issue certs with 1-year validity. As they may not expire later than 2015-11-01, CAs will mostly stop issuing them on 2014-11-01. I guess you could ask them to cut a cert with a special, shorter lifetime but that would be hassle (and therefore extra cost).
We do care about bug reports, and we try and appear we care about bug reports - both by saying that we care, and trying to handle them. But Tyler is suggesting that our failure to handle all of them means that it might appear that our actions speak louder than our words.
If you want to help the two match up, do get involved with Mozilla:-) We could always use more help. Triage is how I got involved, over 10 years ago.
Mozilla has no such position as "Community Lead". Tyler was/is (he is still engaged in constructive discussion) a valued volunteer member of the Mozilla QA and triage community, but he does not have the title "Community Lead".
There are several things which Mozilla's new more rapid release process has made a bit rocky, as Johnathan Nightingale, the Firefox development manager, noted in a recent blog post (syndicated at the Future of Firefox blog). This is one of them.
And, of course, when Tyler says we have told bug reporters we don't care about their bug reports, that's not actually true. He is suggesting that this is what it might seem like. And clearly, it's not great when a bug report is filed and just sits there for months. Mozilla's success has made this a perennial problem for the last decade. We've cracked it, to a degree, before and I'm sure we can do it again.
You know, we at Mozilla have all these people working on this problem and amazingly enough, no-one thought of your idea of using the OS libraries yet! How dumb we suddenly all feel... Clearly, you have more brains than all of us put together.
The MPL already allows the bundling of proprietary components, if Mozilla wanted to go down that route. But they don't - as the links you post show. Pay-on-the-door video standards are not good for the web.
Er, you can't cite your own comment in support of your comment. You need to provide a citation from Metalab that says they did report it privately first, and (preferably) a citation from Mozilla agreeing that this happened.
My understanding is that Metalab blogged without contacting Mozilla first.
Yes it's licensed under the GPL, but not _exclusively_ under the GPL. You can choose your terms from the quoted list of three. So a company - Mozilla or any other - could choose "MPL", and then combine the Mozilla code with proprietary code, whether it implemented video codecs or did something else. The MPL patent language only applies to the code in the final product which is MPLed, and the GPL patent language wouldn't apply at all, because the company's original choice of terms from the three was MPL, not GPL. Netscape is an example of a company which did this, but there are many others who do it today.
Lots of current Firefox features started life as addons. That's a normal way in the Firefox community to prototype something. Are you arguing that if a feature _could_ be implemented as an addon, it _should_ be? Because there's a whole bunch of stuff in the browser I'm sure you use regularly which _could_ be addons. But I bet it would annoy you to download Firefox and have to install 10 addons before it was usable.
Firefox 3.6 with Personas is faster in startup and rendering than Firefox 3.5 without them. If speed is your issue, you don't have an issue. If you don't like the feature, don't use it. It's not intrusive.
"The exempt purpose of the Foundation is to serve the general public by undertaking activities to (1) keep the Internet a universal platform that is accessible by anyone from anywhere, using any computer" (e.g. not just on Windows) "and (2) promote the continuation of innovation on the Internet". (page iii).
Slashdot Mirror
Correlation does not imply causation. And in this case, it seems like there are pretty good candidates for the common cause. And the article even recognises that - the headline is clickbait.
Not for ever - they are working on a method of doing bridge-based WebRTC which is nevertheless end-to-end secure - see https://datatracker.ietf.org/w... . AIUI, the way it works is that it established point-to-point encrypted tunnels between the endpoints for key distribution so the bridge isn't able to decrypt the data even if it wanted to, and yet, you don't need N->N transmission of streams.
Gerv
WebRTC-based services, in the form of e.g. https://meet.jit.si/, are end-to-end secure and decentralised. Not sure if Windows Phone has any browser which supports WebRTC, though.
web.skype.com lets me log in using Firefox, no problem, so presumably it works there as well.
Gerv
It a load of rubbish from the original author. There's no reason whatsoever that loss of this data would cause problems in IE or Edge. Removing roots from MS's program doesn't happen without human input.
"What I don't understand (and maybe because I haven't looked too hard) is what "Old POS terminals" have to do with Mozilla."
The certificates they are using chain up to publicly-trusted roots, and so are covered by Mozilla's policies. In 20-year hindsight, that was a bad idea, but it was a decision taken a long time ago.
Er, it's a wiki. Add it.
The code for the DRM module Firefox uses is not part of the Firefox build system, but is downloaded at runtime. This can be done whether it's a Firefox built by Mozilla or not. So the DRM question has no bearing on whether you can call your version Firefox or not.
This series of blog posts: http://blog.gerv.net/2010/01/p... explains why Mozilla doesn't let just anyone call their modified version "Firefox".
Gerv
The bug is unfixed for philosophical reasons, not because it's hard to fix. The Bugzilla developers feel history should be immutable.
And there has been no rewrite into another language since that bug was filed; Bugzilla as released by Mozilla has always been in Perl.
Gerv
There was no issue with the Bugzilla software here; the problem was that a user reused their password on another site, which suffered a breach.
Gerv
https://careers.mozilla.org/
HTH, HAND. :-)
Now you know how the public feels when they want to make fair use of some video on a DVD or Bluray.
CAs normally issue certs with 1-year validity. As they may not expire later than 2015-11-01, CAs will mostly stop issuing them on 2014-11-01. I guess you could ask them to cut a cert with a special, shorter lifetime but that would be hassle (and therefore extra cost).
Justin: sadly not so, 3.6.21 is not released yet. It will be in the next 48 hours, though.
We do care about bug reports, and we try and appear we care about bug reports - both by saying that we care, and trying to handle them. But Tyler is suggesting that our failure to handle all of them means that it might appear that our actions speak louder than our words.
If you want to help the two match up, do get involved with Mozilla :-) We could always use more help. Triage is how I got involved, over 10 years ago.
Mozilla has no such position as "Community Lead". Tyler was/is (he is still engaged in constructive discussion) a valued volunteer member of the Mozilla QA and triage community, but he does not have the title "Community Lead".
There are several things which Mozilla's new more rapid release process has made a bit rocky, as Johnathan Nightingale, the Firefox development manager, noted in a recent blog post (syndicated at the Future of Firefox blog). This is one of them.
And, of course, when Tyler says we have told bug reporters we don't care about their bug reports, that's not actually true. He is suggesting that this is what it might seem like. And clearly, it's not great when a bug report is filed and just sits there for months. Mozilla's success has made this a perennial problem for the last decade. We've cracked it, to a degree, before and I'm sure we can do it again.
You know, we at Mozilla have all these people working on this problem and amazingly enough, no-one thought of your idea of using the OS libraries yet! How dumb we suddenly all feel... Clearly, you have more brains than all of us put together.
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2009/06/directshow_and.html
Gerv
Changing the scope of the copyleft has been explicitly named as something Mozilla is not going to do.
http://mpl.mozilla.org/scope/
Gerv
The MPL already allows the bundling of proprietary components, if Mozilla wanted to go down that route. But they don't - as the links you post show. Pay-on-the-door video standards are not good for the web.
Gerv
Er, you can't cite your own comment in support of your comment. You need to provide a citation from Metalab that says they did report it privately first, and (preferably) a citation from Mozilla agreeing that this happened.
My understanding is that Metalab blogged without contacting Mozilla first.
Gerv
They did (privately) report it to Mozilla first. The blog went up after Mozilla ignored them.
Citation needed.
Gerv
Yes it's licensed under the GPL, but not _exclusively_ under the GPL. You can choose your terms from the quoted list of three. So a company - Mozilla or any other - could choose "MPL", and then combine the Mozilla code with proprietary code, whether it implemented video codecs or did something else. The MPL patent language only applies to the code in the final product which is MPLed, and the GPL patent language wouldn't apply at all, because the company's original choice of terms from the three was MPL, not GPL. Netscape is an example of a company which did this, but there are many others who do it today.
Gerv
Lots of current Firefox features started life as addons. That's a normal way in the Firefox community to prototype something. Are you arguing that if a feature _could_ be implemented as an addon, it _should_ be? Because there's a whole bunch of stuff in the browser I'm sure you use regularly which _could_ be addons. But I bet it would annoy you to download Firefox and have to install 10 addons before it was usable.
Firefox 3.6 with Personas is faster in startup and rendering than Firefox 3.5 without them. If speed is your issue, you don't have an issue. If you don't like the feature, don't use it. It's not intrusive.
Gerv
It's right in the founding documents: http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/documents/mf-ca-ct-registration.pdf
"The exempt purpose of the Foundation is to serve the general public by undertaking activities to (1) keep the Internet a universal platform that is accessible by anyone from anywhere, using any computer" (e.g. not just on Windows) "and (2) promote the continuation of innovation on the Internet". (page iii).
Gerv
Depends what you are saying. "Hocked" means pawned, although you would normally say "put X in hock". "Hawked", at least in UK English, means "sold".
Gerv