Can you explain why it's necessary to have Firefox behave differently than the rest of the operating system?

Directions for disabling the Windows feature, for those not aware of them:

• https://support.mozilla.org/questions/999026#answer-569684

This has been brought up before the release of Firefox 29. See how the conversation went:

• Bug 952961 - Firefox 26+ does not mark downloaded non-executables as coming from Internet zone, comment 29

Please read the Bugzilla etiquette page before deciding to comment on bug reports.

so from reading that link they just asked the same question as me and got no answer. ive been able to disable the ADS since firefox 3.x. i guess its not possible any more and no one really knows why they decided to change it.

i did find someone where someone said something about chrome doesn't have this option and it allows business's to better control installations. it always comes down to chrome with firefox doesn't it?

jonjonjon wrote:

they just asked the same question as me and got no answer.

The answer was the question I posted above, which neither you or the other person answered. If there's a compelling reason to change something in Firefox, you have to explain what that is, or there's practically zero chance of the change being implemented.

If you need this in an enterprise environment, it's best to discuss the issue on the Enterprise Working Group mailing list. You're not going to get the appropriate attention on this user support forum.

• https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/enterprise

i didn't say i needed it changed for enterprise. that was what someone else said. firefox copying chrome as usual. ill just assume that the answer and it can't be done. honestly firefox devs should just quit and go work for chrome.

Firefox is not part of the operating system. Internet Explorer (for better or worse) is. We all know the reason that MS integrated IE into Windows-- it was part of their attempt to own the browser market (and therefore be able to create their own proprietary standards so they can own the the lucrative web server and web design markets).

That's the only reason the line between true OS settings and IE settings is so blurry. Most of the "Internet" settings are clearly IE settings (like the home page, for just one example). Somehow Mozilla finds no issue in not obeying the setting for home page and most other things in the "operating system" internet settings. Thankfully.

It makes sense that if you want to change the behavior of Firefox, you would use Firefox prefs (especially those that have been there for years, working just fine without any downside). You should not have to go to some hard-to-follow guide that describes using the group policy editor to do it (and does not acknowledge that those of us who are using Home versions of Windows don't HAVE the group policy editor).

Part of the appeal of Firefox has always been that it is configurable-- it does what the user wants it to, not what some other person thinks is best for people he's never met. The browser is here to serve the user's interests and no one else's. IE and Chrome, though, serve conflicting interests. Neither megacorporation made a free browser because they are just that cool. IE and Chrome are about making MS and Google money, and where the user's interests conflict with that goal, the user is going to lose (the way we all would have if MS was allowed to take over the internet as they almost did). Mozilla doesn't have a corporate master that takes precedence over the desires of the user. It would be a shame, but perhaps Mozilla is so dependent on Google revenue that they don't dare challenge Google's interests the way they did with Microsoft.

If the user wants Firefox to ignore the IE pref (which is really what the "system" setting is), then Firefox should be able to do that. It's my browser on my computer, after all-- why does Mozilla feel the need to thwart the desire of their users to turn off an annoying "feature" that serves no real purpose? If I didn't want to run an executable from the internet, I would not have downloaded it and executed it. Less savvy users who don't know any better aren't likely to even comprehend what the warning is trying to tell them (like my former sister in law-- she just hit Allow on every popup from firewall/UAC/whatever she saw without reading it).

Even if you think the warnings have value (it's your prerogative to think differently than I do... hint hint, Moz), but the zone warnings ARE on by default in FF, and a person who is un-savvy enough to need such warnings is never going to use about:config to go changing nitty-gritty settings like that. They probably won't even go into the settings UI, for that matter. No one is arguing that Firefox should ALWAYS ignore the zone setting.

So why should FF behave differently than IE and Chrome? Because Firefox was never about maintaining the status quo. Firefox has always been about being better than that. We already have the most Chrome-like browser possible-- the actual Chrome. If that is what people want, they can go get the real deal. Firefox can and should be better than that.

Just tested the version 31 (now on 28) I spent 2 hours searching the net for this issue and why saveZoneInformation no loger works. I was frustrated, to say the least after I finally landed here, to see that it no longer works but respects Only the IE setting. What a pity. There are scenarios when I don't want to change the OS/IE setting, but tell FF to behave like it always had probably more than a decade. Now I CAN'T! And it's not only this. All these Chrome-like changes are making me throw up. You just finally rename FF to Frome and put end to your users' agony. Now we live in a terrible hypocrisy. The worse Chrome. All this makes me want not to live on this Earth (not only FF).

Re: Gingerbread Man*

This is false. The bug indicates that the option was removed for no reason, as it has nothing to do with the bug. A change was made without a compelling reason.

And now we have a useless option they could have just prefed off when the new file flagging system was implemented.

And you are not a developer but a helpdesk person. You had no reason to ask why if it couldn't be done. The fact that you asked why implies there is a way to accomplish it, but that you're not going to tell them.

This is not a bug report forum, and no one was asking to change something. They were asking how to do something, because that is the purpose of a HELPDESK. If it can't be done, say that instead of implying that you won't help them.

Think about things from the user's point of view. Not doing that seems to be a flaw for everyone that works at Mozilla lately.

• (Why have separate reply buttons if I can't reply to one person directly?)