Uh oh.... >Mozilla has announced that it would like to collect

By preform better they mean selling off your data. That's a type of performance too.

File: waterfox.png (62KB, 1049x560px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 1049x560px

> Disabled Encrypted Media Extensions (EME)
> Disabled Web Runtime (deprecated as of 2015)
> Removed Pocket
> Removed Telemetry
> Removed data collection
> Removed startup profiling
> Allow running of all 64-Bit NPAPI plugins
> Allow running of unsigned extensions
> Removal of Sponsored Tiles on New Tab Page
> Addition of Duplicate Tab option
> Locale selector in about:preferences > General

File: nigga.png (392KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

392KB, 1920x1080px

>>62037250
My nigga.

>>62037250
Why not just switch to ie6?

>>62037094
>Mozilla is making it opt-out

Oh no, clicking preferences and clicking through a couple menus to find the option is sooo hard.

>>62037250
Waterfox also has multiprocess? I gotta admit Firefox went better and more stable since that. But recently there has been just too much bullshit with other stuff.

>>62037250
Would use this but I like being able to sync my tabs/boomarks on my desktop, laptop, and phone. Works good in my porn vm though.

>>62037250
back in the day when i used waterfox few years ago it had enourmous memory leaks

is this still an issue?

>>62037094
More PR bullshit trying to justify farming data for advertisers

>>62037250
>not just switching to Brave

>>62037250
it's so sad that a w3c spec is being disabled in privacy focused browsers

feels like losing

>>62037440
>implying clicking on that option will make any difference
kek

File: 1502230145892.png (392KB, 451x619px) Image search: [Google]

392KB, 451x619px

>>62037250
wait is waterfox debloated or is that palemoon?

>>62037094
How can they keep fucking up?

>>62037094
Idiots. A single mismanaged controversy could kill a big portion of what little marketshare they still retain. Why the fuck did they feel the need to make a telemetry feature opt-out when it was guaranteed to generate noise and scare away the uninformed?

Just open a huge fucking page during the next update telling the user something that sounds attractive and innocuous, like "Help Firefox get better! Let us known what sites work slow for you automatically so we can solve your issues with them!" and make the opt in button look the most appealing to close the fucking tab.

File: image.jpg (144KB, 799x420px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 799x420px

Safari doesn't have this problem

>>62037620
SJWs don't know how to technology.

File: 1480986222861.jpg (10KB, 274x274px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 274x274px

JUST LEAVE MY PRIVACY ALONE FUCK OFF WITH YOUR BOTNET

>>62037250

Also... Waterfox will not be removing XUL/XPCOM extensions along with Firefox.

>>62038454
> Keeping useless, unjailed and insecure shit on source code.

>>62037250
my nigga

>>62037094
what else would you expect from a bunch of PC alternative gender lunatics?

>>62037611
Open-source. Some distros compile it anyway so you do not have to trust Mozilla.

>>62037330
>Microsoft

Your kidding right?

>>62037466
None of your addons will work if you want to use the multiprocess.

>>62037551
>>not just switching to Brave
>never having any features besides what the creator wants you to have

Good luck with that.

>>62037620
>How can they keep fucking up?
This is not them "fucking up" this is them "making their last ditch for survival by selling out the userbase that they lost for being inept retards"

>>62038664
all of my addons work with multiprocess
it's webextensions that's going to fuck it all up

>>62038664
They all work for me. Waterfox user here.
>>62037496
Then make your own sync server cuck
>>62037504
No it's fine.
>>62038601
>using shitty webextentions

>>62038728
Do you audit all your addons code? I hope so. Especially if you're using unsigned ones.

At least web extensions are self contained and jailed.

>>62037094
looks like I switched to Brave just in time

>>62037330
>Why not just switch to ie6?
Yes. Giving up is a valid option.

File: wASmM.png (106KB, 875x1090px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 875x1090px

None of this will matter soon

File: 1502486846927.jpg (215KB, 1264x1600px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 1264x1600px

After the post a few days ago on how Mozilla is joining some "alliance" against "fake news" by profiling users based on user data collected during the 2016 election season, I finally realized Mozilla was 100% SJW botnet and there was no going back. Remember the Pocket integration? Remember the in-browser video chat feature? Remember the forced deprecation of add-ons? Switch all the default settings and about:config flags you want, at the end of the day you will be constantly in a silent war with the Mozilla devs with each browser update. Frankly, this was the last straw.

Switched all my machines to Pale Moon, never looked back. Things are working better than ever. Would recommend, 11/10 IGN.

>>62038841
I'm honestly looking forward to netrunner, it feels just like yesterday it was just an idea among many of a browser.

Is water fox worth using? It has full add-on compatibility right?
>>62039148
How's that going? I haven't seen updates on it in awhile here

>>62039313
From what I know, they got tabs and HTTPs working nicely now.

>>62038841
will it have native 4chan comfy mode or something like that?

>>62039402
They want it to be expandable with easy to write addons, so it hopefully shouldn't be difficult to make scripting for 4chan ricing.

>>62039358
Nice, both of those things are important

mozilla has always been upfront with community testing statistics and its able to be disabled without recompilation

i dont see the issue

>>62039313
>How's that going? I haven't seen updates on it in awhile here
It was never "going". It's a bunch of overly ambitious kids with the idea of creating an entire browser from scratch. To top it off, judging by the code it's their first C++ project.
There's only three modern web engines available right now, Blink/WebKit, Gecko and the Edge fork of Trident. Servo is in development.
All of those were developed over a very long period of time by companies with many resources available: Apple/Google, Mozilla and Microsoft.
Opera switched to WebKit because it could no longer keep up.

I doubt it will ever become more usable than Lynx is now.

File: brave-botnet.jpg (169KB, 926x773px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 926x773px

>>62037551
>>62038800

>>62039498
Netrunner doesn't want to be modern with all the fancy bells and whistles

>>62039504
Maybe we should start rating how evil different botnets are and pick a browser from there. The state of browsers right now is fucked

>>62039458
>mozilla has always been upfront with community testing statistics and its able to be disabled without recompilation
Has Mozilla always been SJW before?
>i don't see the issue
cuck

>>62039551
Did you even see their fucking feature list?

>>62039552
say that to the super sensitive kid whos always posting anti firefox stuff when its the best alternative we have with customization ie about:config and .css/.js

>>62039574
youre the cuck who only sees muh sjw when google for example is a way bigger issue

nice job crying about muh sjw though instead of a technical or foss aspect

>>62039576
>Local cache
>Non-bloated smooth UI
>Written in C C++
>Low on dependencies
>HTTPS with HTTP fallback and ports management like Smart HTTPS and HTTPS by default
>Bookmark management
>Userscript support
>"Open with" feature to use an external application, like for using a video player
These are all very reasonable, the original features list was just jotting down ideas of what they could do with it.

>>62037250
>> Addition of Duplicate Tab option
Yeah, because middle click on reload doesn't do that already.

>>62039600
no offense but the UI looks like crap with a lot of unused space and that anime crap kills it with pure autism

>>62039637
UI is still a work in progress and what site do you think you're on?

Why is Mozilla trying to kill Firefox? Last straw for me was when they, for no reason, removed the possibility of changing new tab page to about:blank. Been using Vivaldi since and while it's okay I miss the old uncucked FF.

So, we can all agree these are the top tier alternatives, right?
>Pale Moon
>SeaMonkey
>Waterfox
>IceCat
>Iridium
Also, does anyone know what's going on with Vivaldi? Is it any good?

>>62039731
the NSA made an offer they couldn't refuse, just read their rhetoric

>w-we swear guys, it's for your own good!! we're just... going against our principles, that's all

>>62039731
how are they trying to kill it?

they have always had this enabled for nightly to improve bug testing and they even have tutorials how to disable it in about:config

on the download section they let u know that it has tracking enabled and you can even click a link to see exactly what is enabled

they have been 100% transparent about it unlike google with chrome where you cant change anything without recompilaton

>>62039600
No, those are not very reasonable.
Let's ignore everything else and just stick to two features, one implied and one from your list.
>Layout engine
>Userscript support -> Javascript engine

The CSS box model alone is a fucking mess to implement and that's not even the tip of the iceberg.
You also expect them to implement a complete JavaScript engine AND the dom.

>>62039754
i use vivaldi, it's pretty good
FF-forks will get you owned when a new exploit is found and they don't push a hotfix fast enough

>>62039504
Opt-in

>>62039767
nice larping kid
is this a repeat of another muh fake soros story? look here
>>62039780

>>62037094

>Which top sites are users visiting?
Use Alexa + Statistics

>Which sites using Flash does a user encounter?
Get data from companies that specialise in this

>Which sites does a user see heavy jank on?
Browse the sites yourselves

Fuck you Mozilla.

>>62039798
Built-in.
Those features are still in the browser and blockchains arent anonymous.

Not to mention they already signed contracts with the advertising companies.

>>62039780
by making it shit on purpose
did you not use FF back in the day? it was superior

>>62037440
>t. winfag 10 user
why should a user have to do that in a """privacy""" oriented browser?

qlqlql wmnwnwn

>>62039817
>using flash
quit being dramatic
>>62039780

>>62039637
>no offense but
opinion discarded

who cares i already ditched it when they made it so you cant have new tab redirect to a local file

>>62039498
How about Vivaldi than? It's partially open source I think, but if I have to trade one set of spying+forced ads for a second, likely with less useful add-ons, I'd rather not change

>>62039824
the performance seems to contradict your statement

nightly has been nothing but a huge improvement

>>62039848
>being so bad at reading comprehension that your conclusions are undeniably wrong

>>62039829
firefox was never a privacy browser
its foss community browser

everything can be changed by the user itself and you can even fork the project if you wish or base a project off of it

ie tor/waterfox/palememe/cyberfox/icecat/iceweasel(former)

the fact is there isnt a alternative because everything else depends on it

File: 1498609463886.png (260KB, 483x368px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 483x368px

I'm gonna shamelessly shill for iridium here, because it's the best browser, as fast as chrome, as compatible as chrome, all the addons, except none of the privacy intrusion of google.
Not sure why anyone would use something else that is just plain worse.

>>62039802
nice reading comprehension, no one is saying you can't disable it, but users shouldn't be forced into it

File: Screen Shot 2017-08-22 at 15.35.32.png (52KB, 741x484px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 741x484px

>>62037496
Who said you can't sync in Waterfox?

>>62039889
are you talking to yourself?
because all of that is optional young lad

>>62037612
Waterfox is current Firefux - bullshit
Pale Moon is Firefux as it should be.

>>62039908
The fact that you have to shill it here, and it can't stand on it's own legs means it's inferior.

>>62039863
>"It's partially open-source, I think."
Yeah, that's real convincing.

>>62039863
Reminder that OP's entire article is based on a single email in a mailing list that asked for the possibility of testing the new system for data anonymization.
The questions listed in the article aren't the questions they want the answers to right now but just examples of opt-in questions they used in the past.

It's just clickbait.

>>62037656
Safari can't into standards tho

>>62039913
meanwhile chrome wont let you change anything and youre forced with what google devs working on chromium pull requests into the upstream

>b-b-but muh biases though

>>62037250
>> Disabled Encrypted Media Extensions (EME)
Disabled by default in Firefox. Mozilla offers a download without it for users that don't want it.
EME runs inside a sandbox so it can't do anything if disabled or if the page you're on doesn't explicitly ask for it.
>> Removed Pocket
Wow. They removed a bookmark. I'm sure those 0.1 KB saved will surely improve performance and privacy.
>> Removed Telemetry
>> Removed data collection
>> Removed startup profiling
OK. Got a point there.
>> Allow running of all 64-Bit NPAPI plugins
>> Allow running of unsigned extensions
Enjoy your unsafe extensions.
>> Removal of Sponsored Tiles on New Tab Page
They removed the sponsored tiles that only appear once and are then replaced immediately by your most visited sites (or never if you import a profile)? Wow.
>> Addition of Duplicate Tab option
Already there.

Waterfox seems like a contrariant version of FF. It just removes features, even the good ones, for the sake of being against Mozilla.

>>62039975
ROFL
>/pol/ tech news
>muh fake soros

b-b-but muh sjw /g/oys!
MUH SJW!!!!

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEe

>>62037094
Nice source baiting faggot.

>fugg it was fake news again

whelp lets fall back into muh SJW since that backfired

:^)

>>62039795
welcome to /g/ kiddo, first time here?

>>62039871
>raw performance is the only way to measure a browser

>>62040009
>Enjoy your unsafe extensions.
OH MY GOD HOW DID WE EVER GET ALONG WITHOUT MOMMY CHECKING OUR EXTENSIONS FOR US?

>>62037094
>perform better
JEWISH lie

> complains firefox is shit
> won't let firefox gather anonymous info to improve firefox

You can't have it both ways

>>62037094
Opt in
Only use firefox to go to racist sites or watch racist shit
They collected the data, now what are they going to do? make those sites work better or would one of the devs kill themselves that they made the program that enables a person to visit said sites?

>>62040394
they wont find anything with the telemetry, as we have already told them they hired a bunch of useless fucking sjws who care more about virture signalling then focusing on making firefox better.

File: imwithmoz.png (23KB, 685x198px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 685x198px

>>62040394

>>62040456
i wouldn't even send them my fresh turds

>>62037250
Why not just use pale moon instead?

>>62040607
Waterfox works with more recent extensions, and some sites just work better. I prefer Pale Moon but I have both installed.

File: file.png (71KB, 1319x417px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1319x417px

What did Bing mean by this?

>>62040607
For me, Palemoon has problems running some addons properly, and there is that "Palemoon.exe has stopped working" i get when I close PM.

But I am using Iridium currently so whatever

File: [RH] Fate kaleid liner Prisma Illya - 11 (OVA) [Dual Audio] [BDRip] [1080p].mkv_snapshot_05.35_[2017.07.08_22.28.07].png (2MB, 1093x1077px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1093x1077px

>>62040411
might be the best idea i've seen on /g/ in while

>>62040665
There are some addons that don't work on it yeah. But desu any time I've run into that issue I've found out by tomorrow I really never needed it anyway. Greasemonkey, ublock origin, umatrix, https everywhere (encrypted web) work and that's all I REALLY need.

>>62040647
If it's not from the top 100 sites it is by definition dangerous

>>62039908
>except none of the privacy intrusion of google
LMAO

>>62038601

Webextensions is too limited. Many good extensions will be broken because Mozilla refuses to implement the necessary APIs in webextensions for them to be ported over. Tree Style Tabs is not useless. It's perhaps the only reasonable way to manage 20+ tabs, and it can only work as a legacy extension.

Until Mozilla significantly improves what kinds of extensions can be made using the webextensions API, I'm not switching over.

>>62039908
Infant-ware.

>>62037094
>Mozilla has announced that it would like to collect anonymous user data in order to “better understand how people use” Firefox.
>implying people use Firefox

>>62037250
Switched to waterfox too, it has the same old RAM issues just like every version of firefox does but at least its not like nightly where it will eat ram until it freezes my pc. Going to stick with this for awhile

>>62037094
they can't figure out why it's becoming so slow, and they're doing this as a last resort

same thing as microsoft

what I think they could do to differentiate themselves from Microsoft is to retain the data for a specific version only, then when it's upgraded to the next version, they make a promise to securely wipe the collected data.

>>62040989
>Nightly eats RAM until freezes my PC
This hasn't been my experience with it, but we probably have different hardware, and it's a pre-alpha piece of software.

>>62041051
>they can't figure out why it's becoming so slow, and they're doing this as a last resort
How stupid must someone be to believe this.

>>62041051
>they can't figure out why it's becoming so slow
They have no real hard core devs left - the price to pay for diversity and quotas.

>>62037094
WTF first mozilla collaborates with Soros to push fake news and now this. Did mozilla get taken over by the jews?

>>62040888
>It's perhaps the only reasonable way to manage 20+ tabs,

you should see a doctor for your autism

there is literally no reason to have that many tabs open

>>62041791
After they lost of the userbase and the google money dried up the only exit they saw was to take the sweet Soros money, and these are the results of that.

>>62041791
fake news /pol/lack

>>62037094
For years now, for years,

Thread after thread after thread complaining about new Firefox versions.

How about you retards dont update until absolutely necessary for add-ons? Huh? So you dipshits can stop complaining about something you wont change in a place where nobody can hear you?

>muh security
Its 2017, muh security is legitimately being smart about content sources. Get a brain.

>>62042009
t. Win XP retard

>>62037094
https://github.com/pyllyukko/user.js/
/thread

>>62042009
>t. captain zero day

>>62042098
>Win10 botnet faggot calling me antiquated
>>62042178
I've been on the net for almost 20 years and have never been hit by a 0day.

Git gud faggot

>>62042218
>i've been on the net for almost 20 years

and no one has come to check on you?

my firefox (55.0) has started to lag, I think I need to switch browsers, any recommendations?

>>62038636
Has Firefox ever been audited by an independent 3rd party? Just because software is open source doesn't mean it respects your freedom by default, it just lets you verify whether or not it respects your freedom by checking the source code.

>>62042298
Without doing an audit I can tell you it doesn't respect your freedums in the strict sense. They use GIF which is proprietary, which was one of the driving forces behind Iceweasel or whatever is called nowadays.

>>62042326
I thought all the patents relating to GIF expired like 10 years ago?

>>62042176
Have you used this? Is it a pain to do? How much shit does it break?

>>62038636
>haha its open sores so you can just trust it bro
do you really think anyone has sifted through every one of all ~20 million lines of code relating to FF?

>>62042355
They did, circa 2003-2004. But that's around the time Iceweasel came to be. As I mentioned, this was one of the driving forces but other reasons include trademarks, which apparently is something the Debian project considers harmful to FOSS despite Mozilla granting permissions to use to the Debian project. I really don't understand the logic behind this decision.

>>62042382
I have indeed use it. For regular browsing it doesn't break much and around 90% of the time you won't even notice it. There's, however, some sites that will refuse to load or end in endless redirect loops, namely some porn sites (xvideos and pornhub to my knowledge). It is kinda of a pita, but after you get used to use different profiles with FF, you'll notice it's even better. I have a series of profiles for different shit, including a few that are just vanilla with private browsing for default. Just don't forget to add the canvas blocker addon since different profiles and user.js won't protect you against canvas fingerprinting.
I strongly recommend you to read the whole page.

>>62042458
Fuck that sounds like a pain. Not sure I'm ready for it yet, but I'll keep it in mind.

>>62042538
It's a matter of choice, and unfortunately you'll have to compromise something. Personally, it all comes down to paranoia levels.

>>62041926
Dude, I have 300+ tabs open most of the time (not the guy you were responding to)

Why can't they implement the rest of functionalities for WebExtensions before deprecating XUL? My extensions are working fine and I see no reason to uninstall 99% of them just because Mozilla wants me to.

>>62042607
>Dude, I have 300+ tabs open most of the time
Why? That's beyond just using tabs as bookmarks like a retard, you might legitimately have a problem.

>>62042607
>I have 300+ tabs open most of the time
Wew lad. I can't live without Tree Style Tabs, but you should probably cut back.

File: 1389159199485.png (929KB, 873x1079px) Image search: [Google]

929KB, 873x1079px

>Switch to waterfox
>Already using less ram with same add ons

Thanks waterfox shill kun

>>62037656
nowebm.webm

>>62042661
Safari would be my browser of choice if it had webm support

>>62042661
>>62042770
vlc plugin

>>62037440
The fact the function is there at all is cause for concern.

File: 1497305107240.jpg (38KB, 711x795px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 711x795px

>>62037094
Another nail in the coffin.

>>62037094
SOROS!

>>62037466
yes, but you need to force enable them.

>>62037466
*force enable and set the number of process

>>62041926

Documentation for libraries, research papers, 4chan tabs, youtube tabs for listening to music, a few web applications I'd like to keep running... no reason I should have to keep closing and re-opening tabs, and managing tab groups with windows is a cop out.

>>62037466
Multiprocess is cancer.

File: 1496681825179.png (210KB, 269x303px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 269x303px

>>62037094
>team up with soros
>start collecting user data
k den, fuck firefox
good alternatives include: ?

>>62044505
This

>>62037250
>using a browser made by an underage ban
Bet you were even younger back then

File: 1462179530831.png (70KB, 350x200px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 350x200px

>>62037094
you don't like my browser?

>>62044593
>using an imageboard mad by an underage ban
Bet you're younger than him

>>62040543
didn't ask.

>>62040989
>Using a dev build and complaining that it's has bugs

File: 1473738282999.webm (1MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 640x360px

>>62037656

>>62045170
why is that girl crying
did her boyfriend dump her or what

Microsoft Edge doesn't have this problem

Well there seems to be a whole army of noisy people who apparently use firefox and hate the way it work, so they buttache about it constantly online. This would be an opportunity to see if these people are indeed valid users or just a shill army from competitors.

>>62038728

>using shitty addons

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/08/after-phishing-attacks-chrome-extensions-push-adware-to-millions/

>>62037094
Cuck porn it is.

>>62037094
Well, don't act like you didn't see it coming. You knew the donations were going to dry up eventually, especially after Google dropped them a few years back. Gotta get money for hair dye and horn-rim glasses from somewhere, and collecting/selling data is real easy when you're already shipping a browser.

Copypasting because this got bumped again.

Reminder that OP's entire article is based on a single email in a mailing list that asked for the possibility of testing the new system for data anonymization.
The questions listed in the article aren't the questions they want the answers to right now but just examples of opt-in questions they used in the past.

It's just clickbait.

>>62047716
>look, it's not data collection it's just data collection
Nope. They can keep it. It's a shit browser anyway.

File: 20170823_114655.jpg (3MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x2448px

MIDWAY DEMORSE

>>62042635
>>62042641
I rarely close tabs. So I end with some of them for months

Still FF is the only free browser that does it decently. You can't have many tabs open in Chromium because they'll look too small.

>>62047841
I-is this doggo okay?

File: tabs.png (30KB, 438x229px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 438x229px

>fall for the fuck firefox shilling
>switch to palemoon
>have my addons like HTTPS everywhere,better twitch tv and privacy badger dont work
>this shit also

who thought having tabs like that was a good idea?
now when i tab out of my browser i have to do TWO CLICKS instead of one

>>62044505
>fags still shilling this lie

M-M-MUH SOROS YALL

>>62037440
>WE RESPECT YOUR PRIVACY!!!1
>until we stop caring.

>>62037094
> Mozilla says that this sort of data collection is necessary in order to make Firefox perform better.

This is always how it starts.

First they need data to "find out how to make the product better".
Then they need data to "find out how our users use the product"
Then they want data because they find out how lucrative it is to sell it.

>>62048034
They always has this for nightly which they were open with on the download page and also offered a tutorial to disable it

you are clearly being dramatic

>>62048058
Just be a good slave and let others decide for you, no big deal. ;^)

>>62048034
>mozilla says
"Mozilla" never said anything. See >>62047716

>>62048081
t. chrome cuck user

>>62047716
Fucking /pol/ with their fake tech news
just like the fucking soros bait

god damnit you guys are making me look like a fucking idiot to my peers

>>62047716
you should reread that email.
shit is going to happen in a months time, using a previously published method from Google.
mozfags btfo.

Outrage aside the technology proposed for making the data anonymous looks interesting.

>>62048160
tfw its about to be disabled in about:config

chromecuks btfo

File: maxresdefault.jpg (123KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1280x720px

>>62041791
Mozilla never formed any partnership with George Soros. That is fake news that originated from a blog called "Activist Post", known for its low factual reporting, misleading clickbait headlines and for pushing heavily skewed narratives.

http://www.fakenewscodex.com/fake-site/activist-post/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/activist-post/

What actually happened is that Mozilla announced an initiative to fight fake news, around the same time an organization in the United Kingdom backed by George Soros called Full Fact demonstrated a real-time "fact-checking" engine to the public.

These two events happened independently and there is absolutely no evidence at all that either of these are in any way connected.

>>62037250
>people still not using waterfox
>2017

>>62039964
>Waterfox is current Firefux - bullshit
>Pale Moon is Firefux as it should be.

Please someone explain to me what this means, I have no context for either of these distinctions, thanks.

>>62037551
>using a browser that have no extensions
Top kek.

>>62048583
So a (((coincidence))). Gotcha.

File: i-want-to-believe.jpg (31KB, 600x750px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 600x750px

>>62048724

>>62037094
>heavy Jank

I'd like to put a hammer through the face of whatever hipster cunt wrote this.

>>62048681
Waterfox tries to keep up with Firefox, adopts new standards and Mozilla's improvements, while removing all telemetry.
Pale Moon is based on an older Firefox and it's Gecko engine and aims to improve the older standards. Basically it uses Mozilla's previous engine, but is no longer keeping up with Firefox and is instead a separate browser made to work like the old/classic firefox. Older addons will probably work on it while they won't work on Waterfox once it switches to v57.

>>62048583
Yet on the Mozilla blog, they cited a known fake news source as an example of a "credible" news organization.

>>62047901
i loved palemoon till one day tree style tabs stopped working permanently, jumped ship to waterfox

>>62042176
>that name

Hey there's a hidden addon called follow on search that sends your search results to Mozilla. How do I get rid of it?

>>62037094
its not really anonymous if they get your ip or the exact url you visited.

>>62045292
No, she's just such a huge apple fanfag that she orgasmed after seeing that macbook. Then she started crying after realising how pathetic she was.

>>62050026
Its the same excuse the government uses for illegal spying, "oh, don't worry, its JUST metadata"

File: 1502926729838.jpg (191KB, 1080x1890px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1080x1890px

>>62037094
Now that Mozilla dosent give a shit about privacy, there is absolutely no reason the use firecucks

>>62050026
>>62051451
>they get your ip or the exact url you visited
They don't.
They get your ip and an elaborate hash. You can then use that hash to ask questions like "did this user visit 4chan.org"?
The hash is calculated in such a way that it answers randomly with 50% chance to any question.
So for any question there will always be at least 50% true answers, you then look at how many more than 50% true answers you get to a question to estimate how many users actually visited 4chan.
You have no way of knowing who they are exactly because half of them gave you random answers.

https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en//pubs/archive/42852.pdf

File: forum_mod.jpg (16KB, 350x200px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 350x200px

>>62048583
thanks for being a voice of reason. I usually have to copy paste something similar but you did it for me.

I'm seriously disappointed in /g/'s critical thinking skills as of late. People here are willing to accept something with absolutely no evidence because confirmation bias. Pretty fucking sad.

My theory is that /pol/-tards are coming over and doing their usually thing (lying). They're really good at lying. They do it all the time.

>>62038958
/thread

>>62047860
it's a wolf, you faggot

File: 5443646454.png (1022KB, 709x814px) Image search: [Google]

1022KB, 709x814px

Come home, white man

>>62040009
>Enjoy your unsafe extensions.
The whole point in Firefox (for anyone using it) is allowing and enabling users who can afford to lose security in trade for functionality, or at least have a workaround, to do it.
Just because you are a retard who needs a nanny like Chrome doesn't mean others are, which also means as Firefox becomes an inferior copy of Chrome people will leave it.

>>62037094
>Sign on with Soros'
>Immediately make data collection opt-out.
I guess we should have seen that coming, they're already preparing to censor websites, but not Soros gets all your userdata (and likely Keystrokes) too.

>>62053000
TREE STYLE TABS

>>62037551
>chrome reskin
>privacy
ok, kid

File: Sting_as_Feyd_Rautha_in_Dune.jpg (18KB, 268x294px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 268x294px

>>62053093
Chrome has an extension for that.
The problem is that you need to donate/pay to unlock full features and it has a slideout box harassing you.
TabOutliner it's called, or something like that.
>this is what Firefox wants to become

>>62053166
>some shit in a separate window
100% Shit.
As is your browser until it has decent functionality.
FF will be shit in 2 versions time when real TreeStyleTabs stops working forever.

Pale Moon/Waterfox are the best browsers going.

>>62037094

What can you even do, I don't trust chromium and don't want to switch to a FF fork that will be unmaintained or still supporting outdated XUL addons that are no longer maintained by devs.

File: chromification-continues-firefox-may-use-chrome-s-pdf-and-flash-plugins-508832-3.png (27KB, 714x432px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 714x432px

>>62053052
you're not just 'losing security' though, some legacy addons have a severe performance impact because a lot of addon developers just have no idea what they're doing, as I recall a major factor in the adoption of ublock was that adblock plus/edge was adding significant page load times to the point that adblock edge, the fork of adblock plus but without the 'acceptable ads' option, deprecated ABE in favour of ublock, on top of that there has always been persistent complaints of profiles slowing down after a few months use and this has been blamed on legacy addons - and neither of these completely valid issues even account for the performance and security improvement that multiprocess is going to bring
ff57 on nightly right now, an unstable beta, is very comparable to chrome performance wise, the only reason firefox would have been considered inferior before is that it'd lack any performance/stability improvements that multiprocess brings, like having the whole browser not crash because a plugin is playing up, and because legacy addons would shit the browser up completely compared to chrome's webextension equivalents

>The whole point in Firefox (for anyone using it)
if you honestly believe that is the case then firefox would have died regardless, quit getting into the way of progress by clinging onto a shitty browser model from the early 2000s

>>62040009
>>> Allow running of unsigned extensions
>Enjoy your unsafe extensions.

the unbranded version of firefox allows running of unsigned extensions

>>62053294
>you're not just 'losing security' though, some legacy addons have a severe performance impact
Irrelevant.
So long as the addon is fulfilling the function i want it i can live with it or tweak it to preform better, and besides, the performance shit is relative from addon to addon, it's not an argument by itself.
I can see this being a problem for people with old computers, but i don't have one, and i don't feel any performance problems with the firefox addon setup i'm running.

>>62048583
Right but wanna bet on the sources they'll push as real news?

NYT, CNN, WaPo, Guardian etc. all have been caught lying constantly

Just look at le russia conspiracy they pushed for month. Why aren't we hearing about it anymore?

Could it be because they made all that shit up?

File: 1307792257684.png (180KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 400x400px

>>62053294
>if you honestly believe that is the case then firefox would have died regardless
It is dying regardless, precisely because the Firefox audience wants a browser of free choice and not a nanny browser.
If the Firefox audience wanted a nanny browser with restrictions, it would be on Chrome and not Firefox, and now they are moving to Waterfox and alternatives.

Your arguments don't convert anyone, they only suit those who work with Chromium and those who want that shit are already there.

Save your opinions for yourself because others don't agree with them for a variety of reasons, one being mainly that people have different requirements from yourself, or use their browsers differently from your case scenario.

>quit getting into the way of progress

Acting on the philosophy of functionality and freedom of choice doesn't stifle progress anymore than building airplanes or trains stifles the car production industry you fucking idiot. There are still browsers which are security-oriented and progress it, browsers which are lite-oriented and progress it, and functionality-oriented and progress it (was supposed to be Firefox) etc. etc.

Your statement here was intellectual dishonesty, and i'm willing to attribute it to you being a troll and not an idiot who can't recognize the fallacy of his own words.

>>62037094
Collecting anonymous data has been a thing since the 90s. You obviously are new if you think that its some huge happening.

>>62044169
t. underage b& newfag shit posting from grandmas core 2 duo

>>62037094
They really don't want me to use firefox huh?
>Fuck over the users by changing the API every week for more than a month until people give up trying to fix their shit
>kill extensions so we have a less secure internet.
>throw in telemetry because who even cares anymore.

Why don't they fix their memory leaks?
Why don't they add basic options to control the web?
Why don't they warn users when the website is unencrypted?
Why don't they have an interface to change the userContent and userChrome css files?
Why don't they have an interface to block certain cross site js?
Why don't they fix the file picker?
Why don't they add features as plugins that are installed by default instead of polluting the source code?
Why don't they have a tool to test performance of the browser that doesn't involve following people around?

>>62037094
>it is not ok when Goys do it

>>62048805
>while they won't work on Waterfox once it switches to v57
[citation needed]

>>62053530
Sounds like too much trouble. Telemetry's easier

>>62053327
>NYT, CNN, WaPo, Guardian etc.

Have any formidable alternatives that isn't a blatant propaganda outlet like Fox News or kooky tinfoil hat conspiracy website like Infowars?

>>62053614
I know it is easier.
Killing all people in the middle east is easier than fixing the problem, but it doesn't make it ethical.

>>62048583
And yet here they are using biased and downright false media outlets for their "fact checking" technology, really makes me think

File: trends.png (45KB, 1769x909px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 1769x909px

>>62053318
>Irrelevant.
/g/ has been complaining about firefox being slow in comparison to chrome for YEARS and that is in large part due to legacy addons holding things like multiprocess rollout back, you can't just shrug off the largest criticism of firefox because it doesn't personally affect you
>and besides, the performance shit is relative from addon to addon, it's not an argument by itself.
while this is certainly true there are plenty of popular legacy addons which add a performance hit in their own way, either through startup time or page load time, I don't think it's any coincidence the people that suffer from performance issues the most or have to frequently create a new browser profile are the people that have a huge mix of legacy addons
>I can see this being a problem for people with old computers
I have problems on a thoroughly modern high end desktop, it's not a case of resource allocation but of some addon developers just not being prepared for the sheer amount of power they were given and lacking any responsibility when their addon does cause issues, that instead all falls back on mozilla

I understand your frustrations and I've lost access to a few addons I'd really like to keep but honestly ff57 has only convinced me that ff can be competitive to chrome and isn't always going to be a step back

>>62053440
good fucking lord, if you could condense the smug ledditor attitude and put it in a post this would be it
>and functionality-oriented and progress it (was supposed to be Firefox) etc
feel free to continue using waterfox or pale moon, iqlet

hard to tell who you're trying to shill for but either way pic related

>>62053657
see >>62053618

>>62053655
>actually, it's about ethic in web development

>>62053698
That's the point, journalism today has become a shitty ass joke, the partisan side they prefer speaks about the colors of the organization and what they're trying to push.

The only source of real facts you can get from news these days is cross-referencing financial news, everything else is blatant lies from raging zealots (both sides).

>>62053750
They might as well be killing children.
Guess it was too hard to fight the good fight, so why not become part of the problem?

File: 1308412924374.jpg (38KB, 230x230px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 230x230px

>>62053680
>/g/ has been complaining about firefox being slow in comparison to chrome for YEARS and that is in large part due to
Various reasons. For every complainer there is someone who doesn't have any complaints because they are running under a different circumstance and system.
>you can't just shrug off the largest criticism of firefox because it doesn't personally affect you
I can precisely because of that. Because I am not them, and addons aren't even half of the reason for performance issues on Firefox but also website coding and much deeper issues within the browser code itself.
Again, you are being dishonest and either using arguments of critics or omission of information to preach specific shit some people don't care about nor have a reason to care about.

>while this is certainly true there are plenty of popular legacy addons which add
Plenty doesn't equal all, and it's not an argument in itself.

>ff57 has only convinced me that ff can be competitive to chrome and isn't always going to be a step back
>good fucking lord, if you could condense the smug ledditor attitude and put it in a post this would be it
It's not competitive to Chrome when it is copying Chrome. It is an inferior version of Chrome. Chrome is there for people when they need compatibility. Other shit like Brave or something are there for people when they need security.
Firefox is there for people who need functionality (not anymore).
It's funny that you accuse someone of shilling who called you out on a logical fallacy that a diverse system of products with discerning traits is precisely a core component of progress as opposed to everything losing their trait of being discerning and becoming a copy of one product's philosophy thereby imposing limitations on the entire field. If someone isn't focusing on function over security, there will be no progress on function. In software there is always a sacrifice or trade-off that needs to be made to progress a certain factor or trait. Dumbass.

>>62053680
>while this is certainly true there are plenty of popular legacy addons which add a performance hit in their own way
Which is why legacy addons should be supported with a disclaimer warning instead of being purged.
You are not making an argument for their removal, you have now lost that argument by your very own admission that there are also plenty of good legacy addons that can mandate continued support in terms of user activation under caution.

>>62053294
you can see exactly when firefox started to fuck around with customizability, now they can eat shit
>hey we see that you use thing so we blocked it for you
>you want to enable thing? fuck you

>>62053774
This

I can't believe they're attempting to add Google RAPPOR into the browser. If they push this through Firefox is officially a slower Chrome clone. I've hung on for a while but this one might be enough to leave Mozilla forever.

File: .jpg (70KB, 490x341px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 490x341px

>>62038664

Understand that there is no such thing as anonymous data. Any piece of data about you can, in combination with the hundreds of other """"anonymous"""" data points, point to you, specifically. And you gave Google or Facebook your real name, address, phone number, credit card etc like a tard.

>opt-out
ONLY things that nobody wants are opt-out by default. Making it opt out tells you they know it's wrong.

>>62053294
>some legacy addons have a severe performance impact

Some webextensions have severe performance impact too, shitty apis and restrictions doesn't make all code work faster.

> ff57 on nightly right now, an unstable beta, is very comparable to chrome performance wise-

Nightly tester for years, nightly 56 with flags to test new features (the ones that are now enabled by default on 57) was as fast as 57 (first versions of 57 were still compatible with legacy addons btw) even running with legacy addons.

The real reason for firefox 57 to be faster is that mozilla delayed certain features to launch them at the same time as the xul deprecation (stylo, multi-e10s, apz...) this way the users will be less likely to complain and even defend them on some case, i call them the firetard squad.

>>62037250
you forgot
>is slow

So far the free software alternatives are:
Waterfox / Palememe (Gecko)
Debotnetted chromium (Blink)
Firefox forks don't seem to have the needed work force to keep a secure and up to date browser. Arguably neither can Mozilla recently.
Debotnetted Chromium (iridium, ungoogled, inox) versions rely on scripts that hope to eliminate code that dials home, but have no man power either to guarantee it.
What else? Brave with questionable advertisement interests and just another chromium fork?
Things are beyond fucked.

>>62053843
>For every complainer there is someone who doesn't have any complaints because [...]
they switched to chrome years ago, or because they're in denial about firefox being consistently and objectively slower than chrome on every system
>and addons aren't even half of the reason for performance issues on Firefox but also website coding and much deeper issues within the browser code itself.
so you're telling me that addons, which are holding back a proper multi-process loadout, aren't half the cause of the performance issues on firefox? and that it's just modern web bloat? m8 I don't need to load a bloated website to realise the addon I've just installed is adding 500ms to firefox's startup time and a few hundred ms to every page load
>or omission of information to preach specific shit some people don't care about
and you're not being dishonest by suggesting that the only thing firefox users care about is legacy addons? give me a fucking break, I've been using firefox for 14 years and I'm not about to jump ship because I'm losing access to a few niche addons
>Firefox is there for people who need functionality (not anymore).
again, feel free to use a fork, dunce
>It's funny that [bla bla bla]
call me when chrome decides to add support for user stylesheets again, until then stop with this false equivalency of firefox being identical to chrome

>>62053885
>Which is why legacy addons should be supported with a disclaimer warning instead of being purged.
they could do that which would mean that they'd have to spend a non trivial amount of development time maintaining a compatibility shim, neither solution is good but maintaining a compatibility shim is going to be a nightmare every time they want to do something that changes the core code, as far as I know the next major change that will do this is a true process per tab setup instead of having a process for the ui and a separate process for content tabs
>you have now lost that argument by your very own admission that there are also plenty of good legacy addons
no, it just means that while I acknowledge that there are good legacy addons that will be missed, the legacy addon system itself comes at a huge price

>>62056063
>they could do that which would mean that they'd have to spend a non trivial amount of development time maintaining a compatibility shim
Oh no, they'll have to spend time being developers and doing what developers are supposed to do, instead of wasting money and time on social diversity programs!

>>62047716
The outrage is needed because they shouldn't even think about it.

I'm definitely going to consider switching to a different browser now.

>>62039964
$0.01 has been deposited into your account!

>>62053981
you mean when chrome was released and started gaining traction? lol, they weren't doing shit in 2010/2011 for compatibility, australis was in 2014

>>62055720
>Some webextensions have severe performance impact too, shitty apis and restrictions doesn't make all code work faster.
that they do but I've yet to find one that can fuck the browser up as much as legacy addons, but here's hoping, either way the profile issue is still due to legacy addons to the best of my knowledge
>nightly 56 with flags to test new features was as fast as 57 even running with legacy addons.
must have missed all those features then because I still noticed a bump going from 56 to 57 with 64bit, e10s/multiprocess and servo all enabled

I realise there's more going on than just deprecation of extensions but then the devs have stated it's necessary to push the future changes they want to include, like a true process per tab model instead of having the ui in a single tab

>>62056305
Future changes like knowing what kind of tranny porn you jerk off to.

>>62053618
ALL news sources are propaganda outlets.

>>62037440
>"Opt-out" preferences eventually become preferences you can't disable.

>>62037440
normalizing spying

you have to be a nigger to not see what's already happening.

>>62037250
>I, Alex Kontos, just your oridinary 16 year old goy, created buzzwords buzzwords ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz
not buying it. lmao.

bet a bunch of dumbasses will.

>>62037094

wtf...its had a fucking tic box for sending info to them for literally a decade +

>>62037250

wow thats great, around that same time google switched its backend architecture for chrome to utilize individual CPU processes for every tab, addon and other features that may be running which cause better stability and not having your entire browsing session impacted by 1 tab crashing, or getting one of those annoyingly fake "hijack" tabs with no way to kill it since you cant open the unaffected task manager and kill that tab's unique process ID

>>62038650
Yup my kidding

>>62056636
How retarded are you? Do you even know to road? Do you understand the difference between opt-in and opt-out? Fucking mongoloid.

>>62056000
GNU Icecat is a reasonable alternative. I doubt they'll include the botnot Mozilla choses to add.

>>62037309
what desktop/theme is that? looks comfy

File: backupyoucreep.jpg (57KB, 880x372px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 880x372px

>>62052595
BACK UP YOU CREEP
GET AWAY FROM ME

>>62037250
>uses Intel's Math Kernel Library
Non-free

Ja doos

>>62045292
its an autistic kid who fell for the applel propaganda and is now so obsessed with apple products that a good "birthday surprise" to him is a surprise trip to the apple store.
They gave him a gift card worth enough to buy a pair of headphones, and the in the part of the video you're seeing the sales rep is feeding them the "he has autism so he will be a great programmer" bullshit and just bulled up some code academy bullshit so he can learn to code at home.
His autism is rated somewhere between "youtube-spongebob tard" and "might actually pull shit shit together in his early 20s and pass as a normal pedestrian"

just how did firefox fuck up so badly.
how can they make so many shitty decisions

>>62037094
>Mozilla has announced that it would like to collect anonymous user data in order to “better understand how people use” Firefox.
didn't they had telemetry for that?

>install nightly
>all my addons stop working

>still using firefox
I don't feel bad for you

>>62048583
This.
Faggot shills getting desperate day by day that they resort to lies like this
>>62053073

>>62061378
You can even use some chrome extensions now

>>62056504
its not spying when they inform you of what they are doing and offer a option to disable with a tutorial

nice try chromecuk

>>62053294
>you're not just 'losing security' though

literally missing the point. It's not your choice repeat that to yourself several times until you actually hear and comprehend the words, "it's not your choice." Users have a right to make decisions about what extensions they install for themselves.

>>62062019
to use your logic no one is forcing you to upgrade to lose support

people want to have performance and security gains and if they listen to the small minority like you that wants nothing to ever change then whats the point?

youre like the guy still use android kitkat when oreo just dropped the other day

>>62062040
Taking away users choices isn't giving them performance and security gains. It's just taking away choices. The lowest common denominator you're trying to "protect" at power users' expense will never even open the settings menu, much less install the addons you're on an autistic crusade against.

>hurr baby duck fallacy

Change is not self-justifying.

Oh noes opt-out!

Just turn it off you massive babies.

Or get a Mac and use Safari, kek

>>62062072
What are you talking about? You still can have addons in firefox 57+.

File: Screen Shot 2017-08-24 at 5.24.24 AM.png (1MB, 2880x1800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2880x1800px

>>62040888
>>62053234
>>62053093

>>62061985
spying is spying even if they pretend to have informed consent(and they really don't)

>>62037440
90% of users just click ok and will never even know the setting exists or what it does. And if they did, do you think any would leave it on?

Easy litmus test: If it were opt in, would anybody choose to use it? If not, then it's only opt-out because the developer knows they're doing something wrong. It's evidence of a guilty mind.

>>62062072
the addons and browsers are seperate projects

they arent directly taking away anything from users its up to the addon devs to supply that for you

meanwhile its been a drawback to the browser for years

people have been sick of hearing they are slower than chrome and now that we have seen such a huge improvement over the past year its evident it was a good choice

>>62062117
>people have been sick of hearing they are slower than chrome

You're mistaking a marketing/shill campaign for actual fact.

>>62039820
it's opt-in and it never nagged me to do so. as long as it stays that way I don't care.

>>62062107
>informed consent(and they really don't)

they do have informed consent retard
go to the download page and it tells you they have usage stats

then click on how they use your data and it will show you how to disable it in about:config

>never even know the setting exists
its not my fault they cant read bold text on a download page

>>62062130
no you are pretending you havent heard it every day for the past 4 years on /g/

you know im right its the main argument against FF and now Nightly is fast as fuck so people have to resort to other tactics now to shame FF

>>62037094
They've been doing this for ages

>>62037094
Haven't they always been doing this? How is this different?

>>62062130
I wouldn't be surprised if a normie installed a bunch of shitty addons and then switch to chrome because "why is firefox so slow omg xD". Mozilla made the right choice, most addons that are getting dropped are shit tier normalfaggotry either way. Power users remain untouched and mozilla can now actually compete with chrome.

It doesn't bother you that Eich already made contract deals with exclusive advertisers for a non-existent user base?

He already sold all of you out before it even got any people to use it.

>>62062175
Yeah but /pol/ cucks will still use it because "muh sjw", they don't actually care if they are getting fucked in the ass, they only care if somebody larps with them or not.

File: index.jpg (16KB, 263x192px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 263x192px

>>62048583
are you saying it was just a (((( coincidence ))))?

>>62062163
>>62062171
They have.

They also informed their users before downloading and have suggested options to disable in their blog.

The OP is a bait post and that's why it doesn't include a source.

The actual conversation is about the process of data anonymization and not the collection of data.

>>62062205
It doesn't matter because it does not affect the browser.

>>62062205
fuck off liar kike
sick of you fags pushing shit like its law without evidence

>>62062174
this is exactly one of the reasons for the proposed WE standard

a lot of normies have used abandoned or loosely developed addons and blamed firefox for the performance

theres even instances of malware being uploaded to the addons repo before mozilla required signed addons

>>62062202
Hmm.
That's unfortunate of them.
Thanks for the insight I suppose.

Reminder: >>62052556

>>62037094
Why the fuck is everything infested with pretentious middle managers these days?

>>62062264
OP is baiting without sources.
Look here.
>>62039975

>set up out out analytics to figure out how to improve your shitty product
>all the power users who are your core target instantly turn it off
>get analytics only from people who use the product because their grandson set up their computer and hasn't been there to disable analytics after the update
>do changes based on analytics gathered from the tech illiterate users
>the changes alienate majority of your users because they destroy the reasons why they chose the product in the first place
>massive drop in market share
>tech illiterates keep using the product until their grandson has to fix their computer again
>this time he installs a competing product instead of the one that was there before because it has turned to shit
>fall into obscurity
>declare bankruptcy
HOW WILL AMD EVER SURVIVE

>>62062317
>competing projects all actually spy without ability to turn off or even informing you of said spying

>>62062317
>all the power users who are your core target

>majority of your users

you are sadly misinformed anon
"power users" are a minority

usage data doesnt differ for them its all the same data collected and you suggesting otherwise only shows your misunderstanding of meta data

>>62062317
>the changes improve the browser because they cut out shit addons
>powerusers are unaffected
>retards cant shit up the browser anymore
>the next versions are twice as light and fast
fixed that for ya

>>62062370
This.
It aligns exactly with my usage experience of Nightly.

File: help.png (159KB, 1599x840px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1599x840px

>>62042641
>>62042635
>>62047854
I have probably ten thousand bookmarks, most unsorted. I also have anywhere from 250 to 500 tabs opened and in tab groups on a daily basis from threads I keep up with because I still refuse to use the thread watcher after all of these years.

Pic related is just my laptop, which can only handle so much with 8GiB of memory. My desktop has tons more open.

>>62062210
For fuck's sake, I really wish you fanboy shill types would get just a hint of self-awareness. Just enough to realize how fucking absurd the shit you say sounds to other people who don't have their heads crammed up some random company's ass.

>They also informed their users before downloading and have suggested options to disable in their blog.
My God, has it really gotten that bad for you folks? You sound exactly like any of the numerous Windows 10 Stockholm Syndrome cases running around this board.
>b-but you can turn off the botnet! they even tell you how on the website!
How you find this even remotely fucking acceptable behavior from a company is beyond me.

>The actual conversation is about the process of data anonymization and not the collection of data.
Really? So what you're actually saying is that most of the conversation in this thread is academic, right? The data collection started ages ago, and we're all way too late to be complaining about it now. Right?

Funny how discussing "data anonymization" is perfectly fine for you, but if this were any other company willfully admitting that they were farming your data you'd be up in arms. The whiny nasal shrieks of "le botnet! le botnet!" would be deafening.
>but it's okay! mozilla is "anonymizing" it!
Yeah, fuck the fact that they shouldn't be collecting any data AT ALL, FOR ANY REASON. Let's just ignore all that. Mozilla is our favorite company after all!

If you didn't know already, firefox has like 6 'call home' things that you need to disable already.
Just throwit into an intercepting proxy and you'll see firefox throw out requests all the fucking time when it's not supposed to be doing anything.

>>62062558
>Yeah, fuck the fact that they shouldn't be collecting any data AT ALL, FOR ANY REASON
That's absolutely ridiculous.
You need some form of feedback to be able to make intelligent decisions about your software.
You think they should run their development cycle based on what /r/firefox tells them?

>>62062650
>intelligent decisions
>mozilla
Do you even read what you're typing? Actually, nevermind. Just gonna let this one go.

>>62062650
>You think they should run their development cycle based on what /r/firefox tells them?
No, I think they should run their dev cycle based on what their users tell them. You might find this hard to believe, but software developers successfully did this before the Internet existed.

>>62062558
>How you find this even remotely fucking acceptable behavior from a company is beyond me.
As long as you can disable it then it's fine. There are many other free software projects that collect anonymous data from which you can opt out. And if somebody doesn't pay attention and forgets to opt out then well... somebody has to pay the toll normie, my neet machine wont pay by itself :^)

>>62062650
>You need some form of feedback to be able to make intelligent decisions about your software.
You do realize most of their stupidest decisions like turning the browser more chrome-like when no one asked for it came from "feedback" or telemetry

>>62062700
>As long as you can disable it then it's fine.
Oh, well. That changes everything. I guess Windows 10 is perfectly fine after all.

>>62062701
>"feedback" or telemetry
you can disable it
>turning the browser more chrome-like
chrome doesn't offer the option to turn it off

>>62062669
>No, I think they should run their dev cycle based on what their users tell them.
They've been ignoring their users for years, why would they change that now?

>>62062669
its a issue when the majority of people have a bug and they never report it and instead they complain on /g/

this is what its for and you seem deeply triggered lad

atleast mozilla shows us what they are doing and why and even how to disable it

good luck getting the same type of service from chrome

>>62062720
Zing!

>>62062707
>comparing proprietary software with foss

nice false equivalency retard

>>62062721
>it's okay when mozilla does it!
If you say so.

>>62062669
You might find this hard to believe but before the internet nobody had to manage a software product built from 18 million lines of code.
You need real world performance data and detailed crash reports.

>>62062701
Australis? Probably an attempt to keep up with the design language change at the time.
Webextensions? An actual attempt to make the browser relevant in terms of performance.

>>62062743
exactly because they are open about it and offer help to disable the feature

File: comment_56ayLiN4EasXITMz79OHRETico6NRuLu.jpg (32KB, 228x250px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 228x250px

>>62062707
>trying to strawman by comparing an open-source project with opt out telemetry to a proprietary os which you can't prevent from spying on you
I wonder who would do such thing?

>>62062743
It's ok regardless of who does it. What's not ok is gathering data to be sold to advertisers.

>>62062720
in that case i hope they continue to ignore the autists because look at where we are now with Nightly

fast and secure so it seems to be working out

>>62062743
>I have run out of arguments

>>62037094
fucking jewish pieces of SHIT

>>62062779
>i took no time to read the thread and now i'm baited and angry

File: sheckels.jpg (86KB, 680x486px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 680x486px

>>62062742
>>62062749
>>62062766
>trying to convince you that foss data collection is completely different from proprietary data collection
>trying to get you to forget the fact that neither should be acceptable
I wonder who would do such thing?

>>62062779
>REEEEEEEE
Take a look here brainlet
>>62039975

>>62062775
You didn't have an argument to begin with, other than trying to convince anyone that Mozilla doing the exact same shit that you condemn companies like Google and Microsoft for is somehow acceptable.

>>62062807
See >>62062772

>>62062787
>he doesnt understand that FOSS data can be verified
>he doesnt understand that proprietary data cant be verified

keep showing your ignorance on the subject you dumbfuck /pol/tard

>>62062807
the difference is that mozilla informs you of why and what they are doing with the data while google and microsoft hide what they are taking and for what reasons

mozilla even provides instructions on how to disable telemetry and such while google and microsoft dont even bother or provide a false UI

at no point has mozilla ever tried to hide anything in regards to usage data

if you cant understand the difference then you really shouldnt be on /g/

>>62062809
And you have what reason(s) to believe that Mozilla won't (or isn't already) selling your data? I mean something other than some disingenuous claim on Mozilla's part that they won't?

>>62062819
>someone else posts the "le epic j00 meemay" but it's okay because he's supporting my narrative
>this person who does the same thing but challenges my position is a /pol/tard
Yeah, ok.

>keep showing your ignorance on the subject
>FOSS data can be verified
Sure it can, champ. How a piece of software collects and encrypts data before sending it back to the mothership has exactly jack and shit to do with its license. If they don't want you examining packets, you won't be doing it, FOSS or not.

>>62062835
>while google and microsoft dont even bother or provide a false UI
[citation needed]

>>62062835
>google and microsoft hide what they are taking and for what reasons
Can't say for MS but google has been very open about everything since day one. Everything.

>>62062845
im sorry what browser did you say you were using again?
:^)

>>62062864
That's completely irrelevant, and a pretty pathetic attempt to steer the discussion away from arguments you don't have answers for.
:^)

>>62062854
citations arent needed
look at cortana that is always active and removing the UI option to disable it

>>62062856
they dont provide options to disable it

>>62062874
>citations arent needed
No, they really are. So provide some.

>>62062872
its because you know that what ever browser you are using is way worse in every argument you have

you just cant admit you have a biased opinion
cry more child

>>62062890
>i ran out of arguments

>>62062807
>>62062845
Listen you faggot if you're too dumb to simply disable telemetry then you deserve to get your data collected.

>>62062895
>i cant stand on my own arguments because im guilty of them

nice job schlomo chromecuk

>>62062845
>you have what reason(s) to believe that Mozilla won't (or isn't already) selling your data?
Because the data they have isn't interesting to advertisers.
If you've read the email that sparked this thread then you know that the data they are (not >>62039975) planning to collect isn't interesting either because it's not targetable (>>62052556)

>>62062902
I know, right? All the fucking retarded kiddos too scared to use Windows 10 or Chrome just because they don't know how to disable the telemetry.

>>62062907
>still trying to desperately steer the discussion away from arguments you can't beat
Is it really that hard to just admit you got blown the fuck out?

>>62062909
>he compares floss to proprietary again
not an argument

>>62062909
thats a false argument because chromes cant be disabled without recompilation and microsoft cant even be audited because the source is proprietary

you would know that if you cared to read the thread

>>62062919
so youre admitting im right that all of your arguments apply to yourself because youre too scared to tell me your browser

if you were confident in your choice you would of told me to "blow me the fuck out"

sadly you failed in this demeaner and not resort to impotent shilling

>>62062919
>blown the fuck out
Your entire argument is based on FUD, you are implying that somehow you can't be sure if mozilla is spying you even with telemtry off, which is not the case because firefox is libre and you can check the source and compile from it and see for yourself if its phoning home without your consent.

>>62062953
This.
We have tools such as wireshark and traceroute to verify and we also have source code to verify operations of command.

Don't expect this guy to understand that when he can't even comprehend the difference of windows10 between open source software.