Firefox encrypts the synced data on the client side, the plaintext content never reaches the mothership. Chrome, coming from google, obviously does not.
Firefox now has only about 6% to 7% of the market.
Considering that this includes mobile, where google thanks to being OS vendor has a head start, and where firefox came far too late to the game, and with a far too bad product, this number is quite high. It means millions of users world wide entrust firefox with their data.
Something is seriously wrong when a product goes from having 30% or more of the market down to 6% within only a few years.
The market has seen a giant growth (mostly caused by android) in the recent years. Before that, the market share was higher. If you look at absolute numbers, firefox didn't lose that much.
Rust and Servo are going nowhere.
I couldn't disagree more. Rust is being adopted by more and more people, although other languages like swift are more popular. And Servo is being improved right this moment, even though its still beta software.
Rust doesn't really improve on C++14
There is one huge improvement C++ never will dare to make: backwards compatibility. Rust is *not* backwards compatible with C, or earlier (and broken) versions of C++. If you don't use modern C++14 consistently, there might be benefits, but the actual potential is unleashed if you use 100% of the modern language. In a language which is backwards compatible to older versions of C++ or C, legacy programs won't likely migrate, or you will accidentially miss some pieces here and there.
a steep learning curve
That's where Rust is much better than C++14 at. C++ is a giant mess of trillions of different programming styles and legacy stuff down to pure C. Rust lacks these things.
only one implementation
I rather have something where there is one but working implementation of, than five different but non working ones. Also, there is much slower progress if multiple implementors have to find the best way to make a feature. Also consider that Rust is a very young language, and stable for since about one year.
Last but not least there is no real reason for somebody to start a second implementation. gcc was started because of proprietary compilers. clang was started because apple hated the GPL. If e.g. apple wants to integrate rustc into xcode, nobody stops them, rustc is MIT licensed.
lots of dead library projects
C++ has even more! Its the living projects that matter, not the dead ones.
Why would any company throw money at Mozilla if there aren't any Firefox users to perform searches or otherwise advertise to?
For now, it has worked out for Mozilla. But I agree, they should really do something about this situation.
They could most certainly turn off civilian GPS on select parts of the planet, like a over a continent. A GPS satellite only serves a given cone below its current position, by turning a satellite off when the cone enters an area you want to block it in, and on again if it leaves it you can block the whole area. It of course only works on bigger "resolutions" like per-continent, but it works.
Dunno if there is even more precise control. Maybe they have a trick I haven't thought of.
What about telling the satellites directly to not send positional data anymore? After all, I've thought the satellites were put in space by them? Or is this in fact a training program for GLONASS and similar systems which they don't control?
That would be a more aggressive blow against ipv6 than what they are currently doing. Right now they only seem to appear to block for the customers they can't geolocate over ipv6, but they don't block it for customers they can geolocate over ipv6. The thing which makes this a story is that its hard for them to geolocate ipv6 addresses, thus leading more ipv6 addresses blocked than ipv4 ones.
Well if it indeed was sensor fault, then given a large enough fleet size it will happen more than once. And once it starts to happen multiple times, Tesla is in trouble, having them to recall everything etc.
Sensor fault can be easily solved though simply by placing a second sensor, that confirms the first sensor's readings. Fun starts of course if the sensors show opposite readings, so better have three and trust the majority, while showing the driver that there is a fault with one of the sensors.
Well its better than userspace programs dealing with firmware. AND it is better if the OS handles firmware upgrades than the firmware phoning home, completely separately from the OS.
Apparently the Keepass website has ads, and if he switched the update check over to https, the website would be visitable over https as well, and if https was used on the website, the ads wouldn't be displayed. Or something like that:
We're talking about firmware that exists on the computer independent of any operating system. That firmware is needed to boot OS install media. You need to be able to update it without an OS present.
So you think its a good thing if the firmware connects to random places in the network, trying to install software? No thanks.
If would be reasonable to point a finger at say UEFI and say "Standardize a secure firmware replacement protocol and provide a reference implementation". But while OS vendors could be part of the recipe, the recipe needs to work without them.
Yeah, UEFI might be a good place to talk about this.
Of course, it is a nice feature if you can update the firmware e.g. via an usb stick you put into the computer, and then you go to the BIOS menu and select "update firmware".
But most people won't need it. Either way, the story was about some userspace windows program that probably sits in the tray bar and shows its splash screen if you log in, one which apparently used HTTP to download the firmware update.
I think life is better if you don't need to have such a program on your computer. Even if you aren't annoyed by some process using up your RAM and so on, you might get into trouble if you install BSD or linux or Haiku OS or anything else and there is no version of the firmware updater available.
The BIOS has no care what operating system is installed, nor should it.
So why should the BIOS updates depend on an userspace program?? There is no such thing as OS independent userspace programs, so every updater the hardware manufacturer can ever write will require some OS to be installed.
You are suggesting microsoft, apple, redhat, BSD, etc. should make an updater for every type of hardware out there, even the ones they don't know about.
There should be some standardized interface where the OS can present the BIOS a firmware image and if the BIOS verifies the signature then it will install it. There is no need for some userspace program filling up the system tray and connecting each 30 minutes with some hardware vendor server.
Exactly, but why should each hardware vendor have to write their own firmware updater program? The OS should take care of this, I don't want to have an extra program running just for the firmware updates.
1. The manufacturer publishes the updated firmware on their website 2. The manufacturer notifies the OS vendors 3. The OS vendors put the updated version of the firmware into their software repos
The manufacturer doesn't have to reinvent any wheel here, and the update process is as secure and as convenient as the normal OS update process is for the OS you are using.
Electric bikes are very risky and many people drive too fast with them. They are killing machines. You don't drive too fast with normal bikes because usually you don't have the power in your legs, but e-bikes give you the ability to drive in more life threatening speeds.
But I don't mind people using e-bikes. As long as its nobody I care about its just fine. e-bike riders only risk their own lives, not the ones of the others. Its something different with cars, where often the people who actually cause an accident go off well, and innocent people get injured or die.
Slashdot Mirror
Tell me what's wrong about my post.
Bonus points if it gets re-routed to their home village instead.
Firefox encrypts the synced data on the client side, the plaintext content never reaches the mothership. Chrome, coming from google, obviously does not.
You change some UI quite easily. Adding A multi-process model is much harder, and getting as fast as chrome is even harder.
Firefox now has only about 6% to 7% of the market.
Considering that this includes mobile, where google thanks to being OS vendor has a head start, and where firefox came far too late to the game, and with a far too bad product, this number is quite high. It means millions of users world wide entrust firefox with their data.
Something is seriously wrong when a product goes from having 30% or more of the market down to 6% within only a few years.
The market has seen a giant growth (mostly caused by android) in the recent years. Before that, the market share was higher. If you look at absolute numbers, firefox didn't lose that much.
Rust and Servo are going nowhere.
I couldn't disagree more. Rust is being adopted by more and more people, although other languages like swift are more popular. And Servo is being improved right this moment, even though its still beta software.
Rust doesn't really improve on C++14
There is one huge improvement C++ never will dare to make: backwards compatibility. Rust is *not* backwards compatible with C, or earlier (and broken) versions of C++. If you don't use modern C++14 consistently, there might be benefits, but the actual potential is unleashed if you use 100% of the modern language. In a language which is backwards compatible to older versions of C++ or C, legacy programs won't likely migrate, or you will accidentially miss some pieces here and there.
a steep learning curve
That's where Rust is much better than C++14 at. C++ is a giant mess of trillions of different programming styles and legacy stuff down to pure C. Rust lacks these things.
only one implementation
I rather have something where there is one but working implementation of, than five different but non working ones. Also, there is much slower progress if multiple implementors have to find the best way to make a feature. Also consider that Rust is a very young language, and stable for since about one year.
Last but not least there is no real reason for somebody to start a second implementation. gcc was started because of proprietary compilers. clang was started because apple hated the GPL. If e.g. apple wants to integrate rustc into xcode, nobody stops them, rustc is MIT licensed.
lots of dead library projects
C++ has even more! Its the living projects that matter, not the dead ones.
Why would any company throw money at Mozilla if there aren't any Firefox users to perform searches or otherwise advertise to?
For now, it has worked out for Mozilla. But I agree, they should really do something about this situation.
They could most certainly turn off civilian GPS on select parts of the planet, like a over a continent. A GPS satellite only serves a given cone below its current position, by turning a satellite off when the cone enters an area you want to block it in, and on again if it leaves it you can block the whole area. It of course only works on bigger "resolutions" like per-continent, but it works.
Dunno if there is even more precise control. Maybe they have a trick I haven't thought of.
What about telling the satellites directly to not send positional data anymore? After all, I've thought the satellites were put in space by them? Or is this in fact a training program for GLONASS and similar systems which they don't control?
That would be a more aggressive blow against ipv6 than what they are currently doing. Right now they only seem to appear to block for the customers they can't geolocate over ipv6, but they don't block it for customers they can geolocate over ipv6. The thing which makes this a story is that its hard for them to geolocate ipv6 addresses, thus leading more ipv6 addresses blocked than ipv4 ones.
1. Bring the phone in download mode
2. Install cyanogenmod
3. ??
4. Profit!!
Well if it indeed was sensor fault, then given a large enough fleet size it will happen more than once. And once it starts to happen multiple times, Tesla is in trouble, having them to recall everything etc.
Sensor fault can be easily solved though simply by placing a second sensor, that confirms the first sensor's readings. Fun starts of course if the sensors show opposite readings, so better have three and trust the majority, while showing the driver that there is a fault with one of the sensors.
Am I entrusting my life to my PC? Mostly not. A car can kill me almost instantly.
Just don't get a household robot, otherwise it will turn itself on when you sleep and the hacker will guide it to your sticky collection.
Man, facebook is working really hard at becoming the most evil company. Microsoft, your title is in danger!
Well its better than userspace programs dealing with firmware. AND it is better if the OS handles firmware upgrades than the firmware phoning home, completely separately from the OS.
Apparently the Keepass website has ads, and if he switched the update check over to https, the website would be visitable over https as well, and if https was used on the website, the ads wouldn't be displayed. Or something like that:
https://sourceforge.net/p/keep...
Well a sane OS will give the user the option to disable it.
We're talking about firmware that exists on the computer independent of any operating system. That firmware is needed to boot OS install media. You need to be able to update it without an OS present.
So you think its a good thing if the firmware connects to random places in the network, trying to install software? No thanks.
If would be reasonable to point a finger at say UEFI and say "Standardize a secure firmware replacement protocol and provide a reference implementation". But while OS vendors could be part of the recipe, the recipe needs to work without them.
Yeah, UEFI might be a good place to talk about this.
Of course, it is a nice feature if you can update the firmware e.g. via an usb stick you put into the computer, and then you go to the BIOS menu and select "update firmware".
But most people won't need it. Either way, the story was about some userspace windows program that probably sits in the tray bar and shows its splash screen if you log in, one which apparently used HTTP to download the firmware update.
I think life is better if you don't need to have such a program on your computer. Even if you aren't annoyed by some process using up your RAM and so on, you might get into trouble if you install BSD or linux or Haiku OS or anything else and there is no version of the firmware updater available.
The BIOS has no care what operating system is installed, nor should it.
So why should the BIOS updates depend on an userspace program?? There is no such thing as OS independent userspace programs, so every updater the hardware manufacturer can ever write will require some OS to be installed.
You are suggesting microsoft, apple, redhat, BSD, etc. should make an updater for every type of hardware out there, even the ones they don't know about.
There should be some standardized interface where the OS can present the BIOS a firmware image and if the BIOS verifies the signature then it will install it. There is no need for some userspace program filling up the system tray and connecting each 30 minutes with some hardware vendor server.
Exactly, but why should each hardware vendor have to write their own firmware updater program? The OS should take care of this, I don't want to have an extra program running just for the firmware updates.
What about the following:
1. The manufacturer publishes the updated firmware on their website
2. The manufacturer notifies the OS vendors
3. The OS vendors put the updated version of the firmware into their software repos
The manufacturer doesn't have to reinvent any wheel here, and the update process is as secure and as convenient as the normal OS update process is for the OS you are using.
they make people hate windows. This is the first step in installing GNU + systemd.
How is this not a reiteration of this old attack from 2014: http://www.tau.ac.il/~tromer/h...
They should just get Cloudflare and call it done.
I'm driving a bicycle as well and it always fills me with joy when I ride past a lane of standing cars.
Electric bikes are very risky and many people drive too fast with them. They are killing machines. You don't drive too fast with normal bikes because usually you don't have the power in your legs, but e-bikes give you the ability to drive in more life threatening speeds.
But I don't mind people using e-bikes. As long as its nobody I care about its just fine. e-bike riders only risk their own lives, not the ones of the others. Its something different with cars, where often the people who actually cause an accident go off well, and innocent people get injured or die.