Quoting Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult (enrico.weig...@gr13.net): > They suggest firefox ... recent versions (at least since 52) have > built-in malware. I've already removed larged parts of it (yet > very experimental and untested) - still need a strategy to align > w/ upstream.
To be very specific, decades ago I learned to distrust the word 'malware', especially when it gets hurled about with a notable and utter absence of specifics. In my experience, it gets used to mean anything and everything in software the author doesn't like. If you mean, for example 'code that opens outbound sockets to a remote corporate IP address for reasons I [either] don't understand [or] consider insufficient', you really ought to say so rather than erring on the side of vague melodrama. Mozilla Foundation's relationship with users cannot help but be problematic on account of its (and its for-profit subsidiary Mozilla Corporation's) funding model, a matter I discussed in passing in my Feb. 2011 Silicon Valley Linux User Group talk 'The Wild, Wild Web: Web Browser Security, Performance, and Privacy'. Slides and lecture notes in the SVLUG News column, here, http://www.svlug.org/ , but I really covered the funding-model problem in full only in my talk itself: In short, you/we/I simply aren't Mozilla Corporation's customer. IMO, the best way to address that and several other problems would be via an Iceweasel Mark II. And likewise: > MSF has already made it perfectly clear they'll never accept any patches > for that and continue their path (already threatened me personally) I've noticed that many people on the Internet use the term 'threaten' at the drop of a hat, and (likewise) the underlying reality, if any, can be anything at all. By the way, what's an MSF? Mozilla Foundation? _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
