6 ms·

Mozilla's Original Sin

44 points by lleyton 2y ago

lxgr 2y ago
You might want to copy-paste the URL for this one, or find another way to not send a referer HTTP header.
- AlbertoGP 2y ago
  One way is to use the Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20240623012818/https://www.jwz.org/blog/2024/06/mozillas-original-sin/ https://web.archive.org/web/20240623012818/https://www.jwz.o... > Some will tell you that Mozilla's worst decision was to accept funding from Google, and that may have been the first domino, but I hold that implementing DRM is what doomed them, as it led to their culture of capitulation. It demonstrated that their decisions were the decisions of a company shipping products, not those of a non-profit devoted to preserving the open web.
- ben0x539 2y ago
  You could also respect the author's desire for this audience to not engage with his takes and move on. Either works.
  - lxgr 2y ago
    So if somebody gives me the finger, I can't discuss their publicly stated opinions elsewhere? That's certainly a take.
    - ben0x539 2y ago
      Yeah no you certainly can do that, but imo it's kinda weird when it's not even something important or anything.
      - pixxel 2y ago
        Not important to you.
  - actionfromafar 2y ago
    Which sin is it that referrer even exists?
  - shadowgovt 2y ago
    Is that what he's trying to do? I thought he was just poking fun at the notion that the site is called "Hacker News" but the average reader here needs written directions to circumvent a very old alternate content game from the '90s internet era. It's a pretty clever ribbing, 10 for 10. ;)
    - lxgr 2y ago
      That's actually how I took it as well – a little roadblock that shouldn't keep any real hacker busy for too long :)
- ReadCarlBarks 2y ago
  If you're concerned about referers, I recommend installing Referer Modifier and setting it to remove cross-hostname referers by default. I've been using it for years and only had to add about 20 exceptions, like: ---- target: imgur.com origin: - action: replace replacement: https://imgur.com/ https://imgur.com/ ---- target: amd.com origin: - action: target ---- target: google(\w+)?.com$ origin: google.com action: prune ---- https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/referer-modifier/ https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/referer-modifier/
- dnissley 2y ago
  Right click open incognito tab
- whyoh 2y ago
  If you value privacy, you should disable referers by default. Only enable them if you really have to (there are extensions for that).
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
lxgr 2y ago
> I hold that implementing DRM is what doomed them Then again, if Firefox had refused to implement DRM, I'd probably have switched to Chrome by now, so there's that. I'm really not a fan of DRM, but I don't think it's fair to blame Firefox for doing what probably a huge part of their user base demands, especially given their pretty dire usage stats. Sometimes, there's wisdom in knowing which battle to pick.
- lukan 2y ago
  The argument is, there would have been a patch, people could install. I think if that click was right at netflix and a ff restart away from working, then maybe yes. But most people would just switch browsers, before looking for that patch.
  - lxgr 2y ago
    What's the difference between that and Firefox outright shipping with a DRM module, though? I do get the ideological objection to not wanting to support DRM, although I don't think that's the battle that Mozilla should pick right now. But extra clicks probably wouldn't make anybody who does happy, while inconveniencing most other users.
    - lukan 2y ago
      It is ideological, not logical in my opinion. And what Mozilla should do right now is rather reemploy the servo team(and more), to actually build a innovative browser again.
      - dudus 2y ago
        I agree Mozilla should be building browsers, supporting open source and being active on the committees. But I wouldn't choose DRM as the hill to die on. There's probably better examples of things Mozilla did wrong.
ricktdotorg 2y ago
i believe jwz is 100% correct with this: In my humble but correct opinion, Mozilla should be doing two things and two things only: 1. Building THE reference implementation web browser, and 2. Being a jugular-snapping attack dog on standards committees. 3. There is no 3.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  That was the W3C in an age gone by and all that got them is total irrelevancy today.
  - shadowgovt 2y ago
    Precisely. It turns out web standards are a lot more descriptive than proscriptive; deviate too far from web browser vendors actually want to implement and you just create a fantasy document that never becomes reality.
    - jauntywundrkind 2y ago
      It'd be great if there were someone other than browser companies funding browsers. Maybe w3c or governments or institutions could actually support implementing all the bonkers excellent wicg.io and other ideas that browsers just don't care to implement.
- clipsy 2y ago
  > 1. Building THE reference implementation web browser, and A reference implementation web browser would not have had popup blocking back in the Bad Old Days of IE6 dominance, and would probably never have become relevant enough to impact web standards in the 21st century. > 2. Being a jugular-snapping attack dog on standards committees. They tried (and still do try) to do exactly this, but you need market share for it to matter; even if Mozilla outright controlled the standards committees, Google would simply implement whatever they want and developers would use it due to the browser monoculture. > 3. There is no 3. Perhaps in the author's next attempt he could eliminate 1 and 2 as well.
- 2y ago
t-writescode 2y ago
Why does this link to a picture now? Or is that just for people who use Firefox? In either case, it's insultingly immature to have that picture be what the link goes to.
- clipsy 2y ago
  It's just for people clicking through from HN. Perhaps @dang can give the author what he desires and block the domain from HN submissions.
  - shadowgovt 2y ago
    He has his reasons to use his platform to remind us who we platform. https://www.jwz.org/blog/2024/01/y-combinator-ceo-wishes-death-to-sf-supervisors/ https://www.jwz.org/blog/2024/01/y-combinator-ceo-wishes-dea...
    - t-writescode 2y ago
      I think I would rather HN be linked to something explaining why he reroutes, like the above link, rather than randomly being shown a scrotum in an egg holder.
      - shadowgovt 2y ago
        Well, when you set up your blog to pay attention to the referrer header, you can link it to where you want.
    - tick_tock_tick 2y ago
      I mean hating on Dean Preston isn't exactly an odd opinion. Few people have done as much to drive up the cost of living and limit access to housing as Dean.
      - shadowgovt 2y ago
        Death threats from a billionaire are not to be ignored.
smitty1e 2y ago
> The on-paper existence of Firefox as a hypothetical competitor kept the Federal wolves at bay, and that's all Google cared about. On-paper prophylactics being the best prophylactics, of course.
zzo38computer 2y ago
> Mozilla should be doing two things and two things only: (1) Building THE reference implementation web browser, and (2) Being a jugular-snapping attack dog on standards committees. I think (1) would more properly be W3C's job, although these days, they probably wouldn't do a good job either (although they did some in the past, and Line Mode Browser has some good features (including a few that modern browsers usually lack), but unfortunately it doesn't work very well).
compsciphd 2y ago
I don't get why implementing DRM support is the "original" sin. The DRMd content is playable in basically all modern browsers, generally at a lower quality level than what one can get via "native" apps that implement DRM in a more "secure" manner. What would have happened if mozilla fought (and won) this DRM battle? At best, the same content at its lower quality levels would have been playable in the browser (i.e. non in a non DRM manner), but the DRM would have still existed at the higher levels for the "native" apps to use. At worst, it wouldn't have been playable at all in the browser. And perhaps somewhat in the middle, it would have been playable in the browser, but at a lower quality level than what is available now. I'm not sure how this is fundamentally different than allowing patent encumbered codecs in (i.e. either things wont work in browser, or they will work worse in browser). One might argue that its not, but that undermines then the concept of "original sin" as the patent encumbered codecs occurred first. I also don't get the argument that someone would have "hacked" in support being an argument for not including it. If someone could hack in support, and that version would be come the version people use (instead of the ideologically pure version), what exactly does one's ideological purity get? "No one" (a bit of hyperbole) is using that version.

44 points by lleyton 2y ago

lxgr 2y ago

You might want to copy-paste the URL for this one, or find another way to not send a referer HTTP header.

AlbertoGP 2y ago
One way is to use the Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20240623012818/https://www.jwz.org/blog/2024/06/mozillas-original-sin/ https://web.archive.org/web/20240623012818/https://www.jwz.o... > Some will tell you that Mozilla's worst decision was to accept funding from Google, and that may have been the first domino, but I hold that implementing DRM is what doomed them, as it led to their culture of capitulation. It demonstrated that their decisions were the decisions of a company shipping products, not those of a non-profit devoted to preserving the open web.
ben0x539 2y ago
You could also respect the author's desire for this audience to not engage with his takes and move on. Either works.
- lxgr 2y ago
  So if somebody gives me the finger, I can't discuss their publicly stated opinions elsewhere? That's certainly a take.
  - ben0x539 2y ago
    Yeah no you certainly can do that, but imo it's kinda weird when it's not even something important or anything.
    - pixxel 2y ago
      Not important to you.
- actionfromafar 2y ago
  Which sin is it that referrer even exists?
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  Is that what he's trying to do? I thought he was just poking fun at the notion that the site is called "Hacker News" but the average reader here needs written directions to circumvent a very old alternate content game from the '90s internet era. It's a pretty clever ribbing, 10 for 10. ;)
  - lxgr 2y ago
    That's actually how I took it as well – a little roadblock that shouldn't keep any real hacker busy for too long :)
ReadCarlBarks 2y ago
If you're concerned about referers, I recommend installing Referer Modifier and setting it to remove cross-hostname referers by default. I've been using it for years and only had to add about 20 exceptions, like: ---- target: imgur.com origin: - action: replace replacement: https://imgur.com/ https://imgur.com/ ---- target: amd.com origin: - action: target ---- target: google(\w+)?.com$ origin: google.com action: prune ---- https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/referer-modifier/ https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/referer-modifier/
dnissley 2y ago
Right click open incognito tab
whyoh 2y ago
If you value privacy, you should disable referers by default. Only enable them if you really have to (there are extensions for that).

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

lxgr 2y ago

> I hold that implementing DRM is what doomed them Then again, if Firefox had refused to implement DRM, I'd probably have switched to Chrome by now, so there's that. I'm really not a fan of DRM, but I don't think it's fair to blame Firefox for doing what probably a huge part of their user base demands, especially given their pretty dire usage stats. Sometimes, there's wisdom in knowing which battle to pick.

lukan 2y ago
The argument is, there would have been a patch, people could install. I think if that click was right at netflix and a ff restart away from working, then maybe yes. But most people would just switch browsers, before looking for that patch.
- lxgr 2y ago
  What's the difference between that and Firefox outright shipping with a DRM module, though? I do get the ideological objection to not wanting to support DRM, although I don't think that's the battle that Mozilla should pick right now. But extra clicks probably wouldn't make anybody who does happy, while inconveniencing most other users.
  - lukan 2y ago
    It is ideological, not logical in my opinion. And what Mozilla should do right now is rather reemploy the servo team(and more), to actually build a innovative browser again.
    - dudus 2y ago
      I agree Mozilla should be building browsers, supporting open source and being active on the committees. But I wouldn't choose DRM as the hill to die on. There's probably better examples of things Mozilla did wrong.

ricktdotorg 2y ago

i believe jwz is 100% correct with this: In my humble but correct opinion, Mozilla should be doing two things and two things only: 1. Building THE reference implementation web browser, and 2. Being a jugular-snapping attack dog on standards committees. 3. There is no 3.

Dalewyn 2y ago
That was the W3C in an age gone by and all that got them is total irrelevancy today.
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  Precisely. It turns out web standards are a lot more descriptive than proscriptive; deviate too far from web browser vendors actually want to implement and you just create a fantasy document that never becomes reality.
  - jauntywundrkind 2y ago
    It'd be great if there were someone other than browser companies funding browsers. Maybe w3c or governments or institutions could actually support implementing all the bonkers excellent wicg.io and other ideas that browsers just don't care to implement.
clipsy 2y ago
> 1. Building THE reference implementation web browser, and A reference implementation web browser would not have had popup blocking back in the Bad Old Days of IE6 dominance, and would probably never have become relevant enough to impact web standards in the 21st century. > 2. Being a jugular-snapping attack dog on standards committees. They tried (and still do try) to do exactly this, but you need market share for it to matter; even if Mozilla outright controlled the standards committees, Google would simply implement whatever they want and developers would use it due to the browser monoculture. > 3. There is no 3. Perhaps in the author's next attempt he could eliminate 1 and 2 as well.
2y ago

t-writescode 2y ago

Why does this link to a picture now? Or is that just for people who use Firefox? In either case, it's insultingly immature to have that picture be what the link goes to.

clipsy 2y ago
It's just for people clicking through from HN. Perhaps @dang can give the author what he desires and block the domain from HN submissions.
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  He has his reasons to use his platform to remind us who we platform. https://www.jwz.org/blog/2024/01/y-combinator-ceo-wishes-death-to-sf-supervisors/ https://www.jwz.org/blog/2024/01/y-combinator-ceo-wishes-dea...
  - t-writescode 2y ago
    I think I would rather HN be linked to something explaining why he reroutes, like the above link, rather than randomly being shown a scrotum in an egg holder.
    - shadowgovt 2y ago
      Well, when you set up your blog to pay attention to the referrer header, you can link it to where you want.
  - tick_tock_tick 2y ago
    I mean hating on Dean Preston isn't exactly an odd opinion. Few people have done as much to drive up the cost of living and limit access to housing as Dean.
    - shadowgovt 2y ago
      Death threats from a billionaire are not to be ignored.

smitty1e 2y ago

> The on-paper existence of Firefox as a hypothetical competitor kept the Federal wolves at bay, and that's all Google cared about. On-paper prophylactics being the best prophylactics, of course.

zzo38computer 2y ago

> Mozilla should be doing two things and two things only: (1) Building THE reference implementation web browser, and (2) Being a jugular-snapping attack dog on standards committees. I think (1) would more properly be W3C's job, although these days, they probably wouldn't do a good job either (although they did some in the past, and Line Mode Browser has some good features (including a few that modern browsers usually lack), but unfortunately it doesn't work very well).

compsciphd 2y ago

I don't get why implementing DRM support is the "original" sin. The DRMd content is playable in basically all modern browsers, generally at a lower quality level than what one can get via "native" apps that implement DRM in a more "secure" manner. What would have happened if mozilla fought (and won) this DRM battle? At best, the same content at its lower quality levels would have been playable in the browser (i.e. non in a non DRM manner), but the DRM would have still existed at the higher levels for the "native" apps to use. At worst, it wouldn't have been playable at all in the browser. And perhaps somewhat in the middle, it would have been playable in the browser, but at a lower quality level than what is available now. I'm not sure how this is fundamentally different than allowing patent encumbered codecs in (i.e. either things wont work in browser, or they will work worse in browser). One might argue that its not, but that undermines then the concept of "original sin" as the patent encumbered codecs occurred first. I also don't get the argument that someone would have "hacked" in support being an argument for not including it. If someone could hack in support, and that version would be come the version people use (instead of the ideologically pure version), what exactly does one's ideological purity get? "No one" (a bit of hyperbole) is using that version.