I understand that some people might have found this cryptic, but they added an explanation, so it's not that cryptic anymore. This problem is fixed. It was not even that cryptic. The first time I encountered this, I was a child and not a native English speaker and I still got it. I find it nice that people try to keep a bit of history/fun.
Now, its not even the same people that are involved in this issue and this article. So no, its not "the same folks".
Anyway, if it's the worst thing you have to complain about Mozilla, we are good I think. People really have weird battles to fight.
Maybe they don't like it the same way I don't like the "aw snap!" error message I've seen more than one place. That one really, really, bugs me. Something just crashed, and you expect me to be ok with you treating it like a joke? Not to mention the assumption that everyone else even finds "aw snap" a natural kind of thing to say instead of about 11 black metro millenials. I think I could never even say the words with a straight face and certainly not be taken seriously if I ever did. I'm failing to articulate just how utterly wrong that error message is. And I am not one of that crowd trying to remove all the life from say the linux source comnents and logs. It's not about any deviation from absolute sterility, there is something very out of touch about that particular example.
>I understand that some people might have found this cryptic, but they added an explanation, so it's not that cryptic anymore.
Right. After about 15 years, they finally relented. So, your position is, "it's not a problem, but they deserve credit for fixing that problem that shouldn't have been fixed"?
>Anyway, if it's the worst thing you have to complain about Mozilla, we are good I think.
Where are you getting that? When Mozilla did something stupid, I pointed to a related, similar stupid decision, originating from the same cultural practices. From that, you twist my words into meaning that's the only thing there is to criticize? That's the mind of an ideologue, not an honest evaluation for truth.
But, if you want to stay in the mentality of automatically trivialzing every unforced error on the part of Mozilla, then, by all means, apply that same reflexive defense to these cases as well!
- Looking Glass: Forcing a cryptic extension on users that accustoms them to ignoring changes that look like software compromise.[3]
- The fact that, post-2016-update, we still don't have the same add-on functionality as before, including the ability to customize controls.
- Not allowing side-loading of unsigned add-ons "because security" even though Chome has long allowed this with no issue.
- Then neglecting to keep the signing key up-to-date. [1]
- Then making previously-signed add-ons stop working as a result of that, compromising user privacy, possibly causing users in hostile countries to be killed. [1]
- Then assuring users that, no, it's okay because we can remotely force updates via an opt-out feature buried in "studies".[2]
All of those are worse, so no, the shitty, confusing in-joke at the expense of frustrated bug victims isn't actually the worst part about Mozilla, it's just the most relevant to the OP's comment. But sure, it provides a convenient way for you to imply that nothing else is wrong with Firefox.
>People really have weird battles to fight.
I'm sorry, what? Wanting a universal, everyday-utility software product to be accessible outside of a small clique ... is a weird battle to fight? That mentality is exactly Mozilla's problem!
> Right. After about 15 years, they finally relented. So, your position is, "it's not a problem, but they deserve credit for fixing that problem that shouldn't have been fixed"?
I didn't say this. At all. My position is "this minor issue is fixed now and does not really deserve any attention whatsoever anymore, didn't much at the time neither [, let's move on to actual problems]". I'm not saying Mozilla is perfect and don't have flaws. They have many. Some of which you have listed. And including their main source of cash. But this "Zaroo bogs found" thing? I appreciate that you don't agree with me, but sorry, it seems so irrelevant! By the way, how many regular, non-technical users face Bugzilla? None that I know of, and I'm surrounded by Firefox users. Most users don't write bug reports. And Firefox's bug reporting system is rather nice anyway, compared to other systems. It's localized, clear to follow, etc.
> post-2016-update, we still don't have the same add-on functionality as before
For the better and the worse, we are never getting this back. I hope you are not holding your breath over it. It's not happening. There are good maintainability and security reasons for this. We have the right to not agree with this but we are not the ones who maintain the browser. I work for a company that allows its software to be highly user customizable, it's our strength but that's not free and it comes with its own issues. We are stuck with old tech forever and cannot move very fast. I personally believe the restrictions are for the best.
> Wanting a universal, everyday-utility software product to be accessible outside of a small clique ... is a weird battle to fight
I didn't say this. I want this too. But Firefox is definitely already accessible outside of a small clique.
> From that, you twist my words into meaning that's the only thing there is to criticize?
I didn't say this. I said "IF". My sloppy phrasing really meant "that does not seem a big deal, of all the issues you could have found around Firefox and Mozilla".
> That mentality is exactly Mozilla's problem!
First, I have nothing to do with Mozilla, and second, I believe Mozilla is actually successful at providing software everyone can use.
Now, its not even the same people that are involved in this issue and this article. So no, its not "the same folks".
Anyway, if it's the worst thing you have to complain about Mozilla, we are good I think. People really have weird battles to fight.