this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
428 points (92.0% liked)

Linux

47572 readers
796 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 52 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (4 children)

Mozilla isn't google. They took it back and encouraged the guy to reach out in the future if any issues arise.

BFD, it's not like they banned his account, just one gimped extension that doesn't do the whole ad blocking experience and even then only because he didn't do anything to try and reverse it. Then after it's restored he throws his tantrum and removes it.

With all the extensions out there false positive detections of malicious apps are going to happen. Nobody has unlimited resources to hire boatloads of devs to review every single line of code of every extension for every update done. That's an insane expectation.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 160 points 3 days ago (4 children)

The discourse about Mozilla is ridiculous, here and most everywhere. You've got people taking every perceived opportunity to attack them for things they do, things they didn't do, and things it's imagined they might've done. And then another crowd of equally determined people doggedly defending them for every idiotic blunder they make, such as this one.

Meanwhile Mozilla itself has nothing substantial to say. This is not the first time a prominent extension has mysteriously gone missing from amo with Mozilla telling us nothing about its role in the incident. @[email protected] needs to be in the discussion giving us a real explanation of what happened, why they got it wrong, and what they're doing to improve things.

[–] [email protected] 55 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Correct, this two-sided discourse is due to a massive lack of communication on Mozilla's part, leaving room for speculation.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 days ago

The best I can think of is that the explainer language used to justify the extension's removal was just boilerplate language that got copy+pasted here because someone clicked the wrong button. But even that makes a mockery of the review process.

I think "oops clicked wrong button" would be slightly more defensible, but not by much. If they truly rejected the extension for content in it that it does not have, it's hard to see how a human could make that mistake even accidentally. But maybe there's something I'm missing.

[–] blurg 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

True in a way. However, there is a rather large collection of speculation on the Internet that is quite an undertaking to correct. And a large population of people and bots willing to speculate. Also, having once been speculated, each speculation takes on a life of its own. If it gets much more substantial, forget Skynet, we're busy creating Specunet and its sidekick Confusionet -- an insidious duo.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 35 points 3 days ago

We have collectively agreed that Mozilla is a) not reviewing extentions enough, and b) reviewing too much.

[–] cyps 7 points 3 days ago

Totally agree, I've already blocked @[email protected] because of the endless stream of rage bait and bad faith arguments. Now it is showing up here too.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 3 days ago

As I've said elsewhere: I wonder what controls Mozilla has in place to prevent gradual takeover of their board by those with an interest in removing Firefox as a competitor. We've watched the sleeper cell in the Supreme Court transform that body into an illegitimate partisan puppet. Mozilla's actions over the last few years would make much more sense if it were being manipulated into self destruction.

[–] slazer2au 95 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Oh so ublock origin lite. A manifest V3 compatible adblocker for chromium browsers.
The original ublock origin is unaffected

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Firefox will be adopting Manifest V3, but a modded version that enables ad blocking.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

But they’re also not ditching v2, correct?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 29 points 3 days ago (5 children)

This one is completely on Mozilla. TBH I'm not very happy with their governance either. Stop spending money on bullshit and start working on the damn browser. Stop hassling devs like him who have had an immense contribution to not only open source, but your fucking browser's usage metrics.

I wish another browser standard comes up and we can say goodbye to this google-infested shit-bucket that is mozilla.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Ok, but "google-infested shit-buckets" are also Chrome and all the chromium poop cups, even more so one might say.

Not disagreeing, especially with the sad sentiment of what's happening at Mozilla, just trying to keep in mind the other 95% of the browser picture.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Which is why I'd like to see a third player. I don't use Chrome except for ungoogled chromium when the other browsers are tied up

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yes, as said, Im agreeing, I was just pointing out the sad reality of what the majority is doing (and like it or not, that affects us all).
I'd love a legit third choice (again)!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That's a real bummer about Mozilla and uBlock Origin clashing. It's weird 'cause their values seem pretty aligned with privacy and user control. Hopefully they can smooth things out soon—users like us just want our browsing to be smooth and ad-free!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

“Seem” : had been, were previously. Now, Mozilla’s values seem no longer reliably aligned with privacy and user control

[–] yikerman 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think it’s just Mozilla has a messy moderation. Don’t overreact.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

I reacted accurately. Mozilla blog today: “ Improving online advertising through product and infrastructure” 🤑

[–] [email protected] 41 points 3 days ago

I almost had a panic attack until I realized this was for UBlock Origin Lite rather than the normal, manifest v2 version. Still mad at Mozilla,though.

[–] UnfortunateShort 39 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

This is more likely someone fucking up and not having a second pair of eyes look at the presumed problem than anything else.

[–] [email protected] 66 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Probably due to automatic extension reviews by Mozilla.

Sad that it happened, but at least it doesn't impact the actual uBlock, only the lite version for which I honestly see no purpose in Firefox anyways.

[–] [email protected] 76 points 4 days ago (4 children)

It was a manual review conducted by an actual person that in the end admitted they were wrong

[–] [email protected] 27 points 4 days ago (11 children)
[–] Buddahriffic 5 points 3 days ago

Agreed. Especially considering uBlock origin is pretty much the main reason to use FF at all. They shouldn't be delegating reviews of it to someone who would fuck up this badly.

Assuming this wasn't a "test the waters" kind of thing to determine just how much they were reliant on ublock.

I've been using the main FF build for a while now but I'm wondering if I should start looking at the various fork options.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I honestly see no purpose in

It's to circumvent ManifestV3.

[–] Neon 11 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Manifest v2 still works on Firefox, so OP was right, it's useless

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] obinice 9 points 3 days ago (3 children)

I thought that was the shit Chrome was doing to block adblockers and antimalware plugins, if Firefox is doing the same thing what browser do we use now? :-(

I don't care about all the browser wars stuff, I lost interest when it was Netscape Vs IE, I just want a browser that I can configure fully myself and have it be as safe and secure as one can make it, within reason.

[–] ilinamorato 10 points 3 days ago

Firefox is not eliminating MV2 extensions. You can stick with Firefox.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 days ago

I dont get why you would run that on Firefox. Users will find the corrent one, all good.

Btw is the uBlock without Origin addon still there?

load more comments
view more: next ›