Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On Sat, 2017-12-23 at 04:36 +0100, drago01 wrote: > On Friday, December 22, 2017, Adam Williamson > wrote: > > > On Fri, 2017-12-22 at 07:01 -0500, Solomon Peachy wrote: > > > > > > Especially since Fedora's maintainers *already* compile it, including > > > changing

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

Benjamin Berg wrote: > Actually, Debian ships Firefox again these days as the policies > apparently have been changed/clarified enough. They ship it as Firefox again under exactly the same kind of informal agreement that they already had once and that already burned them once (because Mozilla

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 04:36:37AM +0100, drago01 wrote: > Same for fedora - if you want to use the trademark. Yes. It's not an unreasonable request. (Although Fedora does offer the secondary "Fedora Remix" mark, and Firefox doesn't have anything equvalent that I'm aware of.) -- Matthew Miller

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On Friday, December 22, 2017, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2017-12-22 at 07:01 -0500, Solomon Peachy wrote: > > > > Especially since Fedora's maintainers *already* compile it, including > > changing some of the defaults. What's a couple more? > > AIUI, Mozilla

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 09:17:27AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > Especially since Fedora's maintainers *already* compile it, including > > changing some of the defaults. What's a couple more? > AIUI, Mozilla doesn't actually like downstreams changing too much in > Firefox. I don't know

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Fri, 2017-12-22 at 09:17 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2017-12-22 at 07:01 -0500, Solomon Peachy wrote: > > Especially since Fedora's maintainers *already* compile it, including > > changing some of the defaults. What's a couple more?

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On Fri, 2017-12-22 at 07:01 -0500, Solomon Peachy wrote: > > Especially since Fedora's maintainers *already* compile it, including > changing some of the defaults. What's a couple more? AIUI, Mozilla doesn't actually like downstreams changing too much in Firefox. I don't know exactly where

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 12:33:20AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > The thing is, the question is whether Firefox even still qualifies as Free > Software at all. We disagree with those actions for a reason, i.e., because > they are attacks on users' freedom! It's Free Software, under every

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

Solomon Peachy wrote: > There is a ginormous difference between not being able to legally ship > something and deliberately not shipping perhaps _the_ premium Free > Software application because you don't agree with every action of its > authors. The thing is, the question is whether Firefox even

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: > Midori has been "revived" only recently. It stayed dead for a while, > without any activity on the codebase/IRC channel, and accumulating a few > CVE's here and there. Interesting. I'd expect the browser itself to not really be security- critical, the underlying

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On 12/20/2017 03:37 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Kevin Fenzi wrote: >> midori is dead upstream. Likely it should be retired, but I keep holding >> out hope they will revive development. I definitely would not suggest >> more widespread usage of it. > > https://code.launchpad.net/~midori/midori/

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:37:48AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > People also ask for patent-encumbered codecs, Flash, etc. It is not always > the right decision to ship what some people ask for. The phrase "cutting off our nose to spite our face" seems relevant here. There is a ginormous

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On Wednesday, December 20 2017, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Kevin Fenzi wrote: >> midori is dead upstream. Likely it should be retired, but I keep holding >> out hope they will revive development. I definitely would not suggest >> more widespread usage of it. > >

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

Kevin Fenzi wrote: > midori is dead upstream. Likely it should be retired, but I keep holding > out hope they will revive development. I definitely would not suggest > more widespread usage of it. https://code.launchpad.net/~midori/midori/ doesn't look that dead. The webKitTwoOnly branch you are

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On 12/19/2017 03:24 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Chris Adams wrote: >> I thought that this was actually a violation of the packaging policies, >> but I can't seem to find it now; I only see the restriction on software >> the requires downloads to be useful. I think simply requiring Mozilla >> to

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On 12/18/2017 09:42 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: Mozilla has already admitted they made a mistake and removed Looking Glass from the Fx Studies.  I believe they understand the situation quite well.  It's not helpful to beat a dead horse. Do you think it's a dead horse? I don't. Actually, I

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

> Chris Adams wrote: > > This is the very least that Fedora ought to do, and it has to be done > immediately! > > In addition, for future Fedora releases, the default browser ought to be > changed to one with a more trustworthy upstream, e.g.: > * QupZilla (soon to be Falkon)

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 3:19 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > None the less, if we consider Fedora maintainers to be adding value via the > packaging process, over having users get their browser direct from Mozilla, > then I do still think it is desirable to be able to

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On Tue, 2017-12-19 at 09:47 -0500, John Florian wrote: > On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 11:16 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > Well, not quite. I installed Firefox rather a long time ago on this > > system. Again I can't prove it, but at that time I believe this > > question and preference referred *only*

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 11:16 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > Well, not quite. I installed Firefox rather a long time ago on this > system. Again I can't prove it, but at that time I believe this > question and preference referred *only* to 'data collection'. However, > since then, a new

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > Conversely though in a Flatpak world though, we would be moving much > closer the model of Windows/OS-X/Android where Mozilla has a more direct > way to push software to users, without a OS vendor arbitrarily rebuilding > & repackaging stuff. And that is one big reason

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

Chris Adams wrote: > I thought that this was actually a violation of the packaging policies, > but I can't seem to find it now; I only see the restriction on software > the requires downloads to be useful. I think simply requiring Mozilla > to change their policies is unacceptable, as this still

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 01:19:26PM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 18 December 2017 at 13:08, Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 09:55:26AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > >> I think we should be concerned by this kind of behaviour on the part of >

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

Adam Williamson wrote: > Well, not quite. I installed Firefox rather a long time ago on this > system. Again I can't prove it, but at that time I believe this > question and preference referred *only* to 'data collection'. However, > since then, a new sub-preference seems to have appeared,

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > It was brought up elsewhere that Chrome/Chromium in the past has done > something worse in scope, silently downloading an add-on to that turns > on & listens to your microphone. Ostensibly to detect the "ok google" > keyword, but since its a closed source add-on can you

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

Matthew Miller wrote: > Is there a fundamental difference between this and, if, say, similar > functionality were in the FF 57 release itself? If Firefox itself contained such adware, that would make the entire browser unusable. Kevin Kofler

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On 19/12/17 01:11, Thomas Daede wrote: On 12/18/2017 03:00 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote: Does anyone read this as Mozilla admitting that they messed up? This was published today: https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/update-looking-glass-add/ It's certainly an improvement on their previous efforts

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On 12/18/2017 03:00 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote: > Does anyone read this as Mozilla admitting that they messed up? This was published today: https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/update-looking-glass-add/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote: > > Can you point out to me which part indicates that Mozilla admits that they > made a mistake. Sounds to me like they're just blaming the dumb users for > not understanding how wonderful was "the experience [they]

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

Gerald B. Cox writes: Everyone makes mistakes - this wasn't the first by Mozilla and won't be the last.  I don't believe they are acting out of malice.  As long as they admit and correct mistakes as they go along that is fine with me. Here's the most complete statement from Mozilla that I

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > IMHO requesting support for a build flag to disable this ability to > remotely push executable code out to user's browser is not unreasonable, I agree. There should be a single, properly documented build-time option to disable all current and future features that

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

Chris Adams wrote: > Are > there any other packages that can silently download and run non-Fedora > code? The other web browsers. They'll silently download and run Javascript code from pretty much every website. It's a crazy dangerous practice, but that genie isn't going to go back into the

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

- Mail original - De: "Adam Williamson" > My mail is based on a belief that Mozilla is still one of the better > actors we have to work with in the category of desktop browser > suppliers, Adam, I agree it's still one of the better actors, but the better actor bar keeps lowering

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

Florian Weimer wrote: > On 12/18/2017 08:31 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > I don't remember being actively asked about such data collection, and > > I've recently installed on a clean system, nightly on Fedora, and then > > final releases of 57 on Windows and macOS. Does anyone have a screen > > shot

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 22:36 +0100, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote: > Is it surprising that the Mozilla foundation, that decided long ago > that users were idiots that didn't know what they wanted, and > reoriented itself to serve the cloud industry I don't share this opinion at all. If Fedora

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

Adam Williamson wrote: > since then, a new sub-preference seems to have appeared, labelled > 'Allow Firefox to install and run studies'. In the Swedish translation the sub-preference doesn't even exist. There is no second checkbox under the translation of "Allow Firefox to send technical and

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > Again, this is something I covered in my original mail. We distribute > Firefox as the default browser to a large number of people who trust us > to provide them with software. This gives us both a

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

De: "Adam Williamson" > I think we should be concerned by this kind of behaviour on the part of > the supplier of our default desktop browser, and we should express that > concern to them. Adam, We should understand that there is a whole software ecosystem that grew on the Internet and free

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On 12/18/2017 09:59 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: Everyone makes mistakes - this wasn't the first by Mozilla and won't be the last. I don't believe they are acting out of malice. Of course not. But at some level, there is a deception involved: Mozilla present a strong privacy focus for Firefox,

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 12:59 -0800, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Adam Williamson < > adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > > > > > The only reason we are beating a dead horse is because you keep > > > telling us that we shouldn't have beaten a dead horse in a way that

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Adam Williamson < adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > > The only reason we are beating a dead horse is because you keep > > telling us that we shouldn't have beaten a dead horse in a way that > > requires us to explain why we are doing so. Look we understand..

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 15:48 -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 18 December 2017 at 15:42, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > > > And in any case, a tie-in with a television-show related game is > > > clearly neither telemetry nor some kind of user interaction study. Yet > > > to me,

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On 18 December 2017 at 15:42, Gerald B. Cox wrote: >> And in any case, a tie-in with a television-show related game is >> clearly neither telemetry nor some kind of user interaction study. Yet >> to me, Mozilla's response does not seem to convey understanding of this >> at all. It

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017, Chris Adams wrote: > the requires downloads to be useful. I think simply requiring Mozilla > to change their policies is unacceptable, as this still depends on a > third party to properly enforce such policies (and not have any security > issue that could result in untrusted

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Adam Williamson < adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 20:52 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > So I just booted Firefox 27 Workstation live and opened Firefox. > Indeed, a pop-under tab appears with this URL (so you can close it > without

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 20:52 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 12/18/2017 08:31 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > I don't remember being actively asked about such data collection, and > > I've recently installed on a clean system, nightly on Fedora, and then > > final releases of 57 on Windows and macOS.

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Gerald B. Cox said: > > First of all, when you install Fx, it asks you specifically if you want > to > > participate in Fx Data Collection - you can opt out at that point. > > AFAIK, not

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

Once upon a time, Gerald B. Cox said: > First of all, when you install Fx, it asks you specifically if you want to > participate in Fx Data Collection - you can opt out at that point. AFAIK, not when you install from an RPM. -- Chris Adams

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On 12/18/2017 08:31 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: I don't remember being actively asked about such data collection, and I've recently installed on a clean system, nightly on Fedora, and then final releases of 57 on Windows and macOS. Does anyone have a screen shot or description of what this "ask"

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 11:09 -0800, Gerald B. Cox wrote: >> >> First of all, when you install Fx, it asks you specifically if you want to >> participate in Fx Data Collection - you can opt out at that point. > >

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Adam Williamson < adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 11:09 -0800, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > > > First of all, when you install Fx, it asks you specifically if you want > to > > participate in Fx Data Collection - you can opt out at that

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 11:09 -0800, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > First of all, when you install Fx, it asks you specifically if you want to > participate in Fx Data Collection - you can opt out at that point. Well, not quite. I installed Firefox rather a long time ago on this system. Again I can't

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > Additionally, can we turn the "Allow firefox to install and run studies" > preference to off/false by default in Fedora packages. It seems odd that > this is now opt-out. > > I don't know. I personally tend to side with

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:42:17AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 12:34 -0600, Chris Adams wrote: > > Once upon a time, Adam Williamson said: > > > As part of a tie-in with an American TV show, Mozilla thought it'd be a > > > great idea to

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:34:46PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Adam Williamson said: > > As part of a tie-in with an American TV show, Mozilla thought it'd be a > > great idea to silently install a cryptically-named addon in all(?) > > Firefox

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

Once upon a time, Adam Williamson said: > Well, practically speaking we do have to have *some* degree of trust in > our suppliers for apps as large and complex as a web browser or, say, > an office app. True, but I do think there's a difference between trusting code

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 12:34 -0600, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Adam Williamson said: > > As part of a tie-in with an American TV show, Mozilla thought it'd be a > > great idea to silently install a cryptically-named addon in all(?) > > Firefox deployments.

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On 12/18/2017 07:29 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: Sure. A new release coming out affords many people in the pipeline many chances to notice changes in it. The packager has the opportunity to notice significant changes while updating the package. Users of updates-testing have the opportunity to

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On 12/18/2017 09:55 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: ...snip... > > “Our goal with the custom experience we created with Mr. Robot was to > engage our users in a fun and unique way,” a Mozilla representative > said in a statement. “Real engagement also means listening to feedback. > And so while the

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

Once upon a time, Adam Williamson said: > As part of a tie-in with an American TV show, Mozilla thought it'd be a > great idea to silently install a cryptically-named addon in all(?) > Firefox deployments. Which can't be turned off. I thought that this was actually a

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 13:08 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 09:55:26AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > I think we should be concerned by this kind of behaviour on the part of > > the supplier of our default desktop browser, and we should express that > > concern to them.

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On 18 December 2017 at 13:08, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 09:55:26AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: >> I think we should be concerned by this kind of behaviour on the part of >> the supplier of our default desktop browser, and we should express that >>

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 09:55:26AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > I think we should be concerned by this kind of behaviour on the part of > the supplier of our default desktop browser, and we should express that > concern to them. Assuming Fedora-as-a-project shares my concern, do we > have a

Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

So in case you haven't heard of it (or noticed about it), there was a kerfuffle in Firefox land recently about this: https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/16/16784628/mozilla-mr-robot-arg-plugin-firefox-looking-glass As part of a tie-in with an American TV show, Mozilla thought it'd be a great idea