Mozilla's Original Sin(mastodon.social)
mastodon.social
Mozilla's Original Sin
https://mastodon.social/@jwz/112662062948208951
28 comments
I'd wager that stalling of GNU OS is as much due to inherent product engineering or design complexities as folks attribute to its principled stand. There are other operating systems like Debian, Mint and Fedora which work pragmatically on your laptops despite having a principled stance.
The "true" GNU Operating System is essentially every distro that's fully free software - to the point where you're excluding things needed for basic functionality like firmware blobs, with the proposed solution of "just use hardware that doesn't need that software". Only about half a dozen distros go the mile to get that stamp of approval, and most of them are forks.
You might think that Debian fits that criteria, but offering to enable the nonfree repo (and likely the nonfree repo itself existing) disqualifies it as an endorsed GNU system. That's the comparison.
You might think that Debian fits that criteria, but offering to enable the nonfree repo (and likely the nonfree repo itself existing) disqualifies it as an endorsed GNU system. That's the comparison.
They don't have a principled stance from a GNU point of view. Debian installation media includes non-free software [1]. The killer feature of Ubuntu and its derivatives was always built-in support for proprietary codecs and drivers that actual regular people aside from Richard Stallman expect to work.
[1] https://wiki.debian.org/Firmware#Debian_12_.28bookworm.29_an...
[1] https://wiki.debian.org/Firmware#Debian_12_.28bookworm.29_an...
Yeah, while I think Mozilla has made a lot of bad decisions over the years (looking at you, Pocket integration), supporting Netflix was not one of them.
Stubbornly clinging to principles at the expense of the user experience will alienate all but the most hardcore users.
Stubbornly clinging to principles at the expense of the user experience will alienate all but the most hardcore users.
Previous discussion (flagged): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40763757
Ah, I assume this is linking to the Mastodon post advertising the article instead of the actual article due to jwz.org's response to requests with HN in the Referer header?
Direct link to those who want to see that response: https://www.jwz.org/blog/2024/06/mozillas-original-sin/
No reason to mastedon this, it's available directly on jwz's website:
https://www.jwz.org/blog/2024/06/mozillas-original-sin/
Not sure if everyone is aware, but jwz was an original Netscape developer, and an advocate for creating the free software licensing that created mozilla when netscape went bankrupt.
So he really is an authoritative source on the mozilla story...
https://www.jwz.org/blog/2024/06/mozillas-original-sin/
Not sure if everyone is aware, but jwz was an original Netscape developer, and an advocate for creating the free software licensing that created mozilla when netscape went bankrupt.
So he really is an authoritative source on the mozilla story...
[deleted]
Out of curiosity, are there any good introspectors/sidesteppers for browser DRM?
The platform is not locked down (in ten years it might as well be), so the only question is which pipeline step the heist will happen at.
The platform is not locked down (in ten years it might as well be), so the only question is which pipeline step the heist will happen at.
What do you mean by that? There was some stuff re widevine circumvention on GitHub at some point, but not sure if that counts as introspector/sidestepper
Why did this get flagged?
Quick reminder, in case anyone is tempted, jwz.org detects referers from HN and redirects to an “unpleasant” image.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Yes. Which is another reason to disable referers in the browser. (There are extensions to toggle them on/off quickly, in the rare event that a website doesn't work properly.)
Freedom also means being free to use DRM if you want to.
Nobody is holding a gun to your head to open a Netflix account.
Nobody is holding a gun to your head to open a Netflix account.
You are right, it's not a gun, it's Widevine they hold against your head.
Of course everyone is free to use DRM if they want to, however, no one should be free to expose others to the risks/consequences of DRM.
It's basically Popper on tolerance all over again. Herefore it should not be a surprise to notice that Mozilla's strategic failures already are costing us freedom.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance for details.
It's basically Popper on tolerance all over again. Herefore it should not be a surprise to notice that Mozilla's strategic failures already are costing us freedom.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance for details.
Yes, being a browser used by small minority surely gives them major bargaining powers to rid the web of DRM.
Or it would simply make Spotify, Netflix and other similar sites not function on Firefox and reduce their market share even more.
Who knows...
Or it would simply make Spotify, Netflix and other similar sites not function on Firefox and reduce their market share even more.
Who knows...
The article itself [0] asnwers to this argument.
> How did it get into the spec? Oh, it got into the spec because when the Content Mafia pressured W3C to include it, Mozilla caved. At the end of the day they said, "We approve of this and will implement it". Their mission -- their DUTY -- was to pound their shoe on the god damned table and say: "We do not approve, and will not implement if approved."
[0] https://www.jwz.org/blog/2024/06/mozillas-original-sin/
> How did it get into the spec? Oh, it got into the spec because when the Content Mafia pressured W3C to include it, Mozilla caved. At the end of the day they said, "We approve of this and will implement it". Their mission -- their DUTY -- was to pound their shoe on the god damned table and say: "We do not approve, and will not implement if approved."
[0] https://www.jwz.org/blog/2024/06/mozillas-original-sin/
It is not an argument and it doesn't "answer" anything. It simply suggests that they should have said no, without going in to details what that would entail.
At the end of the day, does it really matter? DRM extension is external and disabled by default on fresh install, and it asks to be enabled only once you encounter the DRM content. You can always say no if you deeply care about it.
At the end of the day, does it really matter? DRM extension is external and disabled by default on fresh install, and it asks to be enabled only once you encounter the DRM content. You can always say no if you deeply care about it.
Its /not/ (only) external, as your "disabled" in the same sentence already implies. Fundamental changes have been made that transfer power from the end user to elsewhere without end user consent nor them understanding the scope and meaning of the problem at hand.
This transfer was ( partially ) forced by third parties not acting in the end user or Mozillas interest; in fact the opposite is true.
Not only damages technical in nature where dealt, but also in terms of good name & reputation since the adversary made Mozilla squander their responsibilities and by extension betray their relationship with the end users. This is a textbook example of howto drive any organization into the ground.
In my understanding, they could at least have fought for this not to get into the W3C spec, but they did not object, according to the blog. This is one the kind of stuff that endanger free internet, which mozilla is supposed to fight for.
Meta: I would have appreciated a "jwz:" source in the title. I didn't know he was on there, nor that he still posts about tech.
To use the Mastodon web application, please enable JavaScript. Alternatively, try one of the native apps for Mastodon for your platform.
The reason Mozilla can even still hold 10% market share in places like Germany is that they're much more compatible with the monopolist than you'd assume, given the circumstances.
Principled stances land you where the GNU operating system is. In obscurity, where people reference you as ethical, but with few actual users outside of versions that are ideologically watered down (but without your control).