Sorry, I don't understand this.
What does that DRM affect?
EDIT: Did a little more research.
I think I understand now.
What are they doing?
Australis, and now this?
Last edited by a moderator:
Release Firefox 28.0 in repo
- Thread starter hdonk
- Start date
What does that DRM affect?
EDIT: Did a little more research.
I think I understand now.
What are they doing?
Australis, and now this?
ekianjo
Hardcore Member
For those who are not aware, basically it will include a Adobe-created proprietary, closed-source binary in Firefox, to execute DRM-friendly code that the user will not be able to trace.
Netflix has already prepared such an implementation, and probably many other web services will follow.
Mozilla is now taking part in breaking the web. Great job guys.
Nice Reading: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/14/firefox-closed-source-drm-video-browser-cory-doctorow
Now I understand Mozilla a little better.
Still I dislike it.
Now I understand Mozilla a little better.
Still I dislike it.
I've read about that via the GoG-boards here
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/14/firefox-closed-source-drm-video-browser-cory-doctorow
and here
http://boingboing.net/2014/05/14/mozilla-breaks-our-hearts-add.html
It really is a shame, although not really surprising.
thatgui
Advanced Member
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
- Messages
- 3,048
Afaik there isn't any final decision on that subject.
I don't like the decision too, but what would have been the alternative ?
Edit:
Thanks for the read
Last edited by a moderator:
ekianjo
Hardcore Member
Don't insert DRM in Firefox. Since there's a significant amount of Firefox users out there, the services would have been obliged to find a non-DRM solution.
thatgui
Advanced Member
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
- Messages
- 3,048
Why should companies be obliged to do that? Do you honestly think that people would just not use the online video services ? Wouldn't it be more likely that they install a second brower in order to use that service - thus providing a foothold for Firefox competitors. After all, people are already used to DRM in other areas, look at origin/uplay/steam - its not that bad after all, isn't it ?
Last edited by a moderator:
ekianjo
Hardcore Member
So then why Firefox needs to have it too, if people can just live with having another browser installed ? Firefox was campaigning for Free-Web a couple of weeks ago, and now the embrace DRM ? WTF ?? What they say and do don't mean shit anymore, they completely destroyed their image and brand at once.
And yes, it's bad to have DRM everywhere It does not bring ANY value to consumers/users. It's purely for publishers. In case you read the articles linked by the EFF in my earlier post, you'll understand why.
Note that Steam does not always use DRM, only for publishers that require it. Some games they distribute can be launched directly from their own folders without Steam.
thatgui
Advanced Member
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
- Messages
- 3,048
Because they are afraid of loosing users. If they need to install another browser in order to use a certain functionality (and video on demand is currently the big thing) they may be inclined to change to the other browser completly.
I know (no need to bring a steam debate in here), but you still need the steam client for the first download, or if you want to redownload it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Another issue, might not be news, but hit me the first time with version 29. My Pandora started swapping like crazy after opening a new tab. A process named 'Browser' was trying to allocate a GB, fortunately having a swapfile on both cards made it bearable. It seems like it was trying to render the images for the new tab page from my recent history in parallel which unfortunately consisted mostly of GoG pages. After pinning only innocent static pages it seems to work ok now. Can this behavior be configured?
ekianjo
Hardcore Member
Firefox is dead.Firefox 30 is out.
levi
Still fresh, damnit!
Long live Seamonkey!
and on a new PC even 30x slower than the first Versions ^_^Firefox is dead.Firefox 30 is out
Thats because the Version 30 = 30 Times slower and 30 Times more Memory Hungry and 30 Times bigger in the Downloadsize :rolleyes:
Edit: but i must say i use it even on the PC yet :rolleyes:
Last edited by a moderator:
HamishTPB
Member
Am I reading this correctly, does this mean that because of the major browser makers giving in to the media conglomerates that the W3C will include DRM as part of the standards in HTML as well?
levi
Still fresh, damnit!
Only insomuch as they do already, I would suggest. The existing plugin system allows you to include DRM-entangled plugins like Flash, and invoke them using an HTML object tag.
In some ways, the new system is better in that, assuming Mozilla's black-sand box works, the new plugin (or codec, whatever) can only output video, whereas current plugins can do anything a computer program can.
In some ways, the new system is better in that, assuming Mozilla's black-sand box works, the new plugin (or codec, whatever) can only output video, whereas current plugins can do anything a computer program can.
HamishTPB
Member
I am out of touch - I hadn't realised that plugins had gained so much power in the standards. :unsure:
What's the Problem?and on a new PC even 30x slower than the first Versions ^_^Firefox is dead.Firefox 30 is out
Thats because the Version 30 = 30 Times slower and 30 Times more Memory Hungry and 30 Times bigger in the Downloadsize :rolleyes:
Edit: but i must say i use it even on the PC
Firefox is not dead.
It includes DRM in a Sandbox.
That's way better than what others do.
At least thea do care about user security.
And resources?
I don't see any problem either.
My Laptop is more than 30 times faster than a computer 30 Years ago.
I don't care about thart either.
Only the RAM usage is too much for the Pandora.
But it won't be any issue on the Pyra any more.
Also Firefox has benefits for me (mostly plugins) othr browsers don't offer.
I still like it.
