X
Pritisnite ovdje da biste otišli na mobilnu verziju stranice.
Scheduled maintenance: Monday, March 30, between 3:30pm and 5:30pm UTC. This site will have limited functionality while we undergo maintenance to improve your experience. If an article doesn’t solve your issue and you want to ask a question, we have our support community waiting to help you at @firefox on Twitter

Forum podrške

Firefox is a corrupt organization. Here is why

Objavljeno

While back, firefox users got outraged due to bookmakrs comment section was removed. Users were no longer able to write comments for their bookmarks. Firefox said that websites accessing bookmarks, could also read comments which could contain personal information such as logins and passwords etc.

For that reason FIrefox team decided to force users ditch comment section.

The problem here is not the comments but the fact that bookmarks are accessible to other websites. Firefox is not just allowing but had implemented an API for websites to access bookmarks. This was done so that websites can crawl your bookmarks and push ads based on what they find. It may also be a government imposed function. Either one.

So now that thousands of users personal information was exposed to unknown websites accessing their bookmakrs, firefox resolved this with "taking feature away" ? instead of "remove bookmakrs reading by websites" ?

WTF ? I have no words to describe this moral corruption. They purposly created a function that allows websites to access your bookmarks comments. After enough information was shared they decided to pull the plug to make them selves look good as "we care about your privacy" ? What the hell are you talking about ? YOu care about my privacy ? STOP websites from reading my bookmarks !!!!!!!!!!! Websites should have NO access to ANYTHING. They should not know what browser i have, they should not know what bookmarks i have.

While back, firefox users got outraged due to bookmakrs comment section was removed. Users were no longer able to write comments for their bookmarks. Firefox said that websites accessing bookmarks, could also read comments which could contain personal information such as logins and passwords etc. For that reason FIrefox team decided to force users ditch comment section. The problem here is not the comments but the fact that bookmarks are accessible to other websites. Firefox is not just allowing but had implemented an API for websites to access bookmarks. This was done so that websites can crawl your bookmarks and push ads based on what they find. It may also be a government imposed function. Either one. So now that thousands of users personal information was exposed to unknown websites accessing their bookmakrs, firefox resolved this with "taking feature away" ? instead of "remove bookmakrs reading by websites" ? WTF ? I have no words to describe this moral corruption. They purposly created a function that allows websites to access your bookmarks comments. After enough information was shared they decided to pull the plug to make them selves look good as "we care about your privacy" ? What the hell are you talking about ? YOu care about my privacy ? STOP websites from reading my bookmarks !!!!!!!!!!! Websites should have NO access to ANYTHING. They should not know what browser i have, they should not know what bookmarks i have.

Izabrano rješenje

hello, websites are not and were never able to read your firefox bookmarks - there is no such API in firefox, which can be independently verified as all the source code is open and freely available.

this was never mozilla's explanation for why the description section for bookmarks got removed either - that was done for performance reasons and removing complexity (bug 1402890).

Pročitajte ovaj odgovor sa objašnjenjem 0
Citiraj
philipp
  • Top 25 Contributor
  • Moderator
5348 rješenja 23617 odgovora
Objavljeno

Odabrano rješenje

hello, websites are not and were never able to read your firefox bookmarks - there is no such API in firefox, which can be independently verified as all the source code is open and freely available.

this was never mozilla's explanation for why the description section for bookmarks got removed either - that was done for performance reasons and removing complexity (bug 1402890).

hello, websites are not and were never able to read your firefox bookmarks - there is no such API in firefox, which can be independently verified as all the source code is open and freely available. this was never mozilla's explanation for why the description section for bookmarks got removed either - that was done for performance reasons and removing complexity (bug 1402890).
Je li vam ovo pomoglo?
Citiraj

Vlasnik pitanja

Yeah you say that now. Back when it happened, story was different.

Yeah you say that now. Back when it happened, story was different.
Je li vam ovo pomoglo?
Citiraj
the-edmeister
  • Top 25 Contributor
  • Moderator
5433 rješenja 40562 odgovora
Objavljeno

The "story" then was the same as it is now -- all annotations in the places.sqlite file were slated for removal, in stages as the "surviving" features were re-written for performance. Basically an update of the places.sqlite features 10 years into the "Places" database system.

The "story" then was the same as it is now -- all annotations in the places.sqlite file were slated for removal, in stages as the "surviving" features were re-written for performance. Basically an update of the places.sqlite features 10 years into the "Places" database system.
Je li vam ovo pomoglo?
Citiraj
cor-el
  • Top 10 Contributor
  • Moderator
17846 rješenja 161524 odgovora
Objavljeno

All places.sqlite actions were previously synchronous and done in the main Firefox processor thread and this affects the responsiveness of Firefox. All actions are now done asynchronously in their own processor thread, not only for places.sqlite database actions, but also for all other components. The description field hasn't made it to the new asynchronous version for various reasons. The description field was only exposed in the Library and there was already another description field available used for the new tab page that was filled via the meta tag on the website.

All places.sqlite actions were previously synchronous and done in the main Firefox processor thread and this affects the responsiveness of Firefox. All actions are now done asynchronously in their own processor thread, not only for places.sqlite database actions, but also for all other components. The description field hasn't made it to the new asynchronous version for various reasons. The description field was only exposed in the Library and there was already another description field available used for the new tab page that was filled via the meta tag on the website.
Je li vam ovo pomoglo?
Citiraj

Vlasnik pitanja

Never had any performance issues with firefox in the past even with ton of bookmarks. Like i said, back when it happened, the word was not performance ut security related problem. Sites reading bookmark comments problem.

Descriptions are a minor feature of bookmarks Marco Bonardo said Really  ? Description was the BIGGEST feature of bookmarks. People put notes there and login info and passwords. And now its gone (well not now)

Type: enhancement Really ? enhancement ? Since when taking something AWAY is an enhancement ? Try male enhancement pills. Will you be happy if it makes it smaller ?

Where is logic in here ?

Then Marco Bonardo suggests to use web extension instead ? Thats allot safer right ? RIGHT !!!!!!! (what an #####)

Never had any performance issues with firefox in the past even with ton of bookmarks. Like i said, back when it happened, the word was not performance ut security related problem. Sites reading bookmark comments problem. Descriptions are a minor feature of bookmarks Marco Bonardo said Really ? Description was the BIGGEST feature of bookmarks. People put notes there and login info and passwords. And now its gone (well not now) Type: enhancement Really ? enhancement ? Since when taking something AWAY is an enhancement ? Try male enhancement pills. Will you be happy if it makes it smaller ? Where is logic in here ? Then Marco Bonardo suggests to use web extension instead ? Thats allot safer right ? RIGHT !!!!!!! (what an #####)
Je li vam ovo pomoglo?
Citiraj
Kymber 2 rješenja 25 odgovora
Objavljeno

Regardless of what the explanation was and is, this is more a case of the developers deciding that they know what the users want better than the users themselves, implementing whatever they want. breaking functionality for many users with every new major release, and being 100% non-responsive to complaints from the users that they created problems for.

Case in point: Prior to FF69, there was a setting that allowed Firefox to remember your decision on the use of Adobe Flash on any given site. Then they removed that setting, citing the upcoming deprecation of Flash as justification ... even though that isn't going to happen until the beginning of 2021. Because every website that uses Flash is on their own internal timetable to replace it with whatever is appropriate in HTML5, this means every time I access a site that hasn't upgraded yet, I have to authorize Firefox to run Flash via the pull-down from the address bar. EVERY SINGLE TIME.

It happens that there are four sites I visit daily, in order to play Hidato, Sudoku, Jumble, and the like. I have been visiting those sites for literally years. They pose no security threat, yet they are probably going to be staying in Flash until almost the last minute, because those online puzzles are going to be difficult to replicate in HTML5. I have asked -- multiple times -- for a relatively simple fix, which is to modify the pull-down to allow Firefox to "remember" my decision to allow only for that site.

All I get in return is "we did this because Flash is going away" ... well, yes, I have acknowledged that every time. But they acted more than a year before that was going to be an issue, they have inconvenienced every user who has a circumstance like mine, and now we are at FF72 and guess what still hasn't been addressed by them.

I'm going to keep complaining about this until either they put in a temporary fix (which, of course, would be removed along with Flash support itself a year from now) or time runs out. I figure that if they can't be responsive, they deserve to be called out on it as often as they put out a release that doesn't address this simple, basic problem which they created and now apparently refuse to fix.

Corrupt? Only in the sense that the developers seem to have a collective God syndrome.

Regardless of what the explanation was and is, this is more a case of the developers deciding that '''they''' know what the users want better than the users themselves, implementing whatever they want. breaking functionality for many users with every new major release, and being 100% non-responsive to complaints from the users that they created problems for. Case in point: Prior to FF69, there was a setting that allowed Firefox to remember your decision on the use of Adobe Flash on any given site. Then they removed that setting, citing the upcoming deprecation of Flash as justification ... even though that isn't going to happen until the beginning of 2021. Because every website that uses Flash is on their own internal timetable to replace it with whatever is appropriate in HTML5, this means every time I access a site that hasn't upgraded yet, I have to authorize Firefox to run Flash via the pull-down from the address bar. EVERY SINGLE TIME. It happens that there are four sites I visit daily, in order to play Hidato, Sudoku, Jumble, and the like. I have been visiting those sites for literally years. They pose no security threat, yet they are probably going to be staying in Flash until almost the last minute, because those online puzzles are going to be difficult to replicate in HTML5. I have asked -- multiple times -- for a relatively simple fix, which is to modify the pull-down to allow Firefox to "remember" my decision to allow '''only for that site'''. All I get in return is "we did this because Flash is going away" ... well, yes, I have acknowledged that every time. But they acted more than a year before that was going to be an issue, they have inconvenienced every user who has a circumstance like mine, and now we are at FF72 and guess what still hasn't been addressed by them. I'm going to keep complaining about this until either they put in a temporary fix (which, of course, would be removed along with Flash support itself a year from now) or time runs out. I figure that if they can't be responsive, they deserve to be called out on it as often as they put out a release that doesn't address this simple, basic problem '''which they created and now apparently refuse to fix'''. Corrupt? Only in the sense that the developers seem to have a collective God syndrome.
Je li vam ovo pomoglo?
Citiraj
cor-el
  • Top 10 Contributor
  • Moderator
17846 rješenja 161524 odgovora
Objavljeno

There is a way to allow Flash on specific domains by using a policies.json file. This works only for the curent session, so you need to repeat after closing and restarting Firefox

  • /questions/1268957 Adobe flash will not remain active on our 24h emergency medical web site

See:

There is a way to allow Flash on specific domains by using a policies.json file. This works only for the curent session, so you need to repeat after closing and restarting Firefox *[/questions/1268957] Adobe flash will not remain active on our 24h emergency medical web site See: *https://github.com/mozilla/policy-templates/blob/master/README.md#flashplugin
Je li vam ovo pomoglo? 0
Citiraj
Kymber 2 rješenja 25 odgovora
Objavljeno

Anything that isn't automatic every time I launch Firefox is not a solution for me. (Probably not for the vast majority of us.)

But thanks for trying.

Anything that isn't automatic every time I launch Firefox is not a solution for me. (Probably not for the vast majority of us.) But thanks for trying.
Je li vam ovo pomoglo?
Citiraj
Postavite pitanje

Morate se prijaviti na račun da biste odgovarali na poruke. Molimo postavite novo pitanje, ako još uvijek nemate račun.