What was Mozilla thinking on this? It was already an extension. This is madness. I have spent the week removing all traces of firefox from dozens of workstations. The about:config disable is not an acceptable solution. As there is still a for-profit api/system sitting on the machine. We left Navigator way back in the day for the same reason. It seems it is time to abandon this ship too.
On Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 10:25:09 AM UTC-4, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote: > On 09/06/2015 14:47, snafumatt...@gmail.com wrote: > > Adblock plus and ublock origin are by far the most popular add-ons for > > Firefox. Will you be implementing those by default, too? > > Part of the effect of these add-ons (in terms of not being tracked and > pageload improvements) is currently (being) implemented in Firefox > Nightly, yes. > > > Firefox has always been about empowering the user. You never dumb things > > down for them, you give them a choice. If there's an add-on we want, we > > find it or we create it. The add-ons should not be implemented into Firefox > > outright, because then you're removing that "choice" by providing it to > > people who never asked for it in the first place. > > We give people a choice, but we do make a "what's the default" choice, > no matter which feature or add-on is concerned. We pick defaults that we > think make sense. Implementing things that add-ons provide as default > doesn't remove choice (assuming things can be overridden or turned off, > like with pocket, and/or don't seriously interfere with a large number > of users' usecases (I don't think we need a built-in "off" switch for > bookmarks or tabs, for instance)). It changes the default behaviour. I > would contend that it is fully part of Firefox being Firefox (and indeed > probably any good product/browser) that it continues to try to have sane > and useful defaults. > > In this case we decided that including Pocket by default was a good way > of achieving our aims in the required timeframe. There are arguments for > and against that decision, for sure, but I don't think "Firefox should > never do anything that remotely resembles what an add-on does or could > do" is one of them. > > ~ Gijs _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
