Your thoughts on Firefox to have ads in the browser
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti
http://www.geek.com/apps/ads-are-coming-to-firefox-heres-what-theyll-look-like-1584764/
Mozilla is looking to integrate ads into future versions of Firefox to generate revenue for their company. There has been some mixed reactions in adding ads to the new tab pages for the browser and it made me really curious on your thoughts.
Will Abrowser remove the ads from the new tab page to protect the privacy of its users? Or is there going to be a future clause to the Firefox licensing where deriatives will have to use the ad code or else they won't allow you to use your code?
Heck, does this even make Chromium more appealing now? I mean it is less restrictive on the licensing and is pretty much free software with a few questionable licensing.
If the Trisquel team spent the time to fix or block libraries in Chromium and repackage as a full libre alternative instead of using Firefox for Abrowser, would that be an option?
"Will Abrowser remove the ads"
Yes. Issue solved. The rest is just speculation. Moving on.
Great idea. And then we'll all keep crying "oh why are there so few people making money with free software".
I don't know how showing some ads should harm the privacy of the users in any way.
If you want to contribute to free software, then let those damn ads where they are.
Mozilla is probably trying to become less dependent on Google for its income (said to be 90%). I block ads anyway with a clear conscience because I'm never going to click on them and they are an attack vector for malware. I wish Mozilla luck in finding alternative sources of revenue, but I will downgrade as much as necessary to avoid problems if Mozilla has to compromise its principles.
I'm a bit fraid they're shooting their own foot here. I'd like to see what (and if) other options has been considered and researched. It's easy to go just what everybody else does, but that breaks ff's greatest strength, i think.
I'm still in favor of starting to offer Chromium as an option for Trisquel but with questionable licenses/libraries removed or blocked.
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 02:46:55AM +0100, name at domain wrote:
> I'm still in favor of starting to offer Chromium as an option for
> Trisquel but with questionable licenses/libraries removed or
> blocked.
Why? you want to help google/nsa spy on users?
You seem to be confused. Chromium is the BSD licensed base for Chrome and doesn't include Google icons, their tracking systems, and the non-free Flash and PDF reader plugins. It runs the same as Chrome, but without the crap.
This forum doesn't like underscores in the URL, so here you go for Wikipedia: http://ur1.ca/gnsfx
i'm not confused, are you? Google-Chrome is based off of Chromium, so improving Chromium helps Google in the end - and by extension the NSA. Encouraging Chromium's use, reporting bugs, fixing bugs - in the end, helps Google and by extension the NSA... Chromium is also considered non-free software by trisquel - end of story there. This is the second time tonight, I'm seeing free or quasi-free (in chromium's case) software being used by companies for what i'd consider unethical reasons... sad.
Little analogy: trisquel is based off of ubuntu.
Take the rest of your comment and replace "google" with canoncial.
Almost, except the up/downstream relations don't match.
@quantumgravity i think you make a valid point there. the fact trisquel is based on ubuntu, is a BIG issue for me personally. infact, i'd say it's the biggest reason, that i wasn't able to keep all my systems running trisquel (my now failed new years resolution).
Yes, it is true that Chromium is based off of code created by Google, but it is still considered a lot more open than the non-free Chrome browser. Chromium is actually less restricive than Firefox as there is no trademarked graphics or related assets that force the Trisquel teams to alter the code in order to use it.
You do realize that without Google, that the Mozilla team would lose 90% of its funding for Firefox. That is why they are starting to push ads and alternative revenue due to the worry of Google pulling the cord.
Either way, both browsers are backed by Google so if you use either one of them, you are keeping Google relevant. Sorry to break the news to you.
actually, when i heard about this ad thing in mozilla, it did make an impact on me. i use Tor Browser Bundle, which while firfox-based, will never include ads, as ads = tracking/privacy issues - for most of my web surfing. i am using the minimal uzbl a lot more. but, i do still have abrowser/iceweasel installed on my various machines. for me, i can no longer trust either of the major two browsers :(
I also encrypt my DNS with the OpenDNS DNSCrypt proxy: https://launchpad.net/~shnatsel/+archive/dnscrypt
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 04:55:52PM +0100, name at domain wrote:
> I also encrypt my DNS with the OpenDNS DNSCrypt proxy:
> https://launchpad.net/~shnatsel/+archive/dnscrypt
personally, i'd say your @hotmail.com might be a bigger issue, then encrypted DNS...
Its a bullshit email I had since 1997.
"ads = tracking/privacy issues"
If you have some facts why this should be true in general, then please go ahead and explain them to us.
I can't see any reason why this should be true.
Technically, it is perfectly possible to show a banner of an online-shop without sending any data to nsa or anybody else...
And since firefox is free software we can make sure that it's not doing this.
A much better idea than removing the ads, since this will increase the financial dependancy of mozilla on google; THIS is helping google and the nsa.
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 07:25:15PM +0100, name at domain wrote:
> "ads = tracking/privacy issues"
>
> If you have some facts why this should be true in general, then
> please go ahead and explain them to us.
try a quick search for "how advertising works online" add tracking or cookies for more details - tons of info out there on the subject!
> I can't see any reason why this should be true.
> Technically, it is perfectly possible to show a banner of an
> online-shop without sending any data to nsa or anybody else...
it's certainly "technically" possible, but that's not how that industry is doing it right now!
> And since firefox is free software we can make sure that it's not doing this.
thank goodness! but i do think mozilla is selling out it's users on this issue.
> A much better idea than removing the ads, since this will increase
> the financial dependancy of mozilla on google; THIS is helping
> google and the nsa.
you do have a point here, and it's not an easy issue to solve!
i don't personally bother blocking ads, i don't go to many sites with ads to begin with...
Well, I agree that there certainly is a problem and personally I'd rather see mozilla doing a fund raising campaign like wikipedia or gnu.org /fsf.
ZykoticK9, you live in a fantasy world where you think a company can release software on a large scale for free without any type of financial backing. Some of the most popular and stable free software that you use was created due to the developers finding ways to make money on it (through donations, services, or corporate backing) and in return, developers want to use it since it is has the support and reassurance that the code will be around.
The Linux kernel has been backed by corporate entities (even Microsoft) to keep it running. Do you think that Linus would work on the Linux kernel for free considering he has a family to feed and bills to pay? Hell no.
Do you think that there would be a Firefox browser and source code for Trisquel to modify without any type of money to the Mozilla team? Would developers feel motivated to work on it as their part or full time jobs? No.
Take a look at the Trisquel project. Ruben has to take a full time job because this operating system is not financially viable for him. He has to work on this in his free time and therefore releases and general updates are slow. If Ruben started trying to make money on this project besides donations, you would all throw a fit and say he sold out and is "evil" and flock to something else.
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 01:25:02AM +0100, name at domain wrote:
> ZykoticK9, you live in a fantasy world where you think a company can
> release software on a large scale for free without any type of
> financial backing. Some of the most popular and stable free software
You "might" be wrong about my fantasy world?
And the company behind Debian is? Possibly the largest free software/open source project on earth.
> Take a look at the Trisquel project. Ruben has to take a full time
> job because this operating system is not financially viable for him.
> He has to work on this in his free time and therefore releases and
> general updates are slow. If Ruben started trying to make money on
Doesn't the above go against your point? Without financial compensation, shouldn't you be arging Trisquel shouldn't exist?
"And the company behind Debian is? Possibly the largest free software/open source project on earth."
Come on, usually Debian is considered to be the unholy dirt of linux distributions cause they dare to host an optional non-free repository, but suddenly it becomes the positive example for how to make free software without being a company?
I can tell you why Debian is what it is: because it has a huge userbase.
And why is that? Because it didn't frighten new users to death with too extreme "we don't know that non-free software even exists" rules.
I'm glad that debian didn't bow down to the fsf; probably it wouldn't exist today.
And the simple logic goes like this:
No Debian -> No Ubuntu -> No Trisquel.
Really, after almost one year in this board and with Trisquel, I get the impression that the only work trisquel does is removing stuff from other people's work and blaming them for being not ethical.
Best example now with mozilla. There is no prove for any privacy violation, they just wanted to make money; but trisquel does what it can best: removing.
I highly doubt that's the reason for Debian being successful... are you forgetting that most GNU/Linux systems out there don't have a policy at all, and only around 10 in total are more strict than Debian?
I don't know the history behind Debian's success, but I'm sure it's not as simple as having proprietary software in a repo like almost everyone else does (and not even by default, or in the main repository).
By the way, don't overgeneralize; I don't have a problem with these ads in Firefox, and I was nothing but confused when bloggers described it as a "betrayal". They're just filling up empty space for users that don't have a browsing history yet. At the same time, though, I don't think it's wrong for a derivative of Firefox to remove the ads any more than it's wrong to remove Mozilla's Google sponsorship. It's not Trisquel's job to make Mozilla money.
According to Debian's site (http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/project-history/ch-intro.en.html#s1.1), "the creation of Debian was sponsored by the FSF's GNU project for one year (November 1994 to November 1995)".
It then deviated (although far less than any other popular GNU/Linux distribution) from the FSF's ideals.
+1 for your last paragraph.
I agree that Debian gets too much flak from the FSF even though the non-free repo is optional and usually not enabled by default. Also, the Linux kernel doesn't include non-free firmware by default (unlike Ubuntu) and requires the installation of non-free kernel firmware from the non-free repo.
You are right about the people on this board. This project is more about people saying you are evil or unethical unless you follow the religion of the FSF exactly than actual development of the operating system.
Want to know the current state of most "free software" projects? They are usually one man teams that are low in quality or quickly get abandoned after the developer loses interest or his full time job takes focus. They do it for evangelical reasons and if the project does become useful, it is limited due to the strict licensing structures.
Want to know the current state of most "open source" projects? I mean take a look at MongoDB, Scala, Play Framework, Node.js, jQuery, Firefox, Magento, Wordpress, nginx, Apache, and Android. Those are only a few I can think of but it does show that these projects are actually considered top quality and useful. Most of these are under a more permissive license to increase adoption and integration. Even though they are under a permissive license, there is the worry about companies being evil and making them non-free, but the reality is that most developers and companies just want to use the software and contribute back to the upstream project instead of forking it.
Biggest thing of them all? Both "free software" and "open source" are pretty much the same thing when they use the same licenses. Apache, BSD, GPL, MIT, whatever. Its just that "free software" has this evangelist, attacking, and confrontational attitude and history to it that turns off most people.
quantumgravity & t3g,
If you don't subscribe to Free Software ideals - what are you doing here?
Trolling?
Where did I say that I don't subscribe to free software ideals?
I'm using only free software on my computer except of the bios and I'm making many sacrifices to this.
I also spend much time telling people about the importance of free software and why it should be used. I'm known as the free software guy round here, talking about GNU and ethics behind software all the time. What's your point?
This is not the first time that I get the "you're trolling" response after criticizing trisquel with some valid points.
How about providing arguments instead of making false claims?
I'd like to point out, to people like t3g, that the dismissive "you're trolling" and "what are you doing here?" statements are not a unique aspect of this community. I've experienced them at length from open source proponents and proprietary software developers at an open source community I used to be a part of.
This type of dismissive attitude is infuriating when it's used on you, and anyone who does it ought to stop. But it's a general human fault, not a trait unique to free software activists.
I don't think I've ever called anyone a troll on this forum. I provided detailed arguments in this thread and it was ZykoticK9 that chose to be childish and defensive and call me (and others) on this thread trolls or in the act of "trolling" because it is easier (and lazy) to name call instead of giving a detailed response.
He still didn't do the leg work in proving us wrong that Chromium was non free and it was another forum member who did the work while ZykoticK9 posted a link to another site that may have outdated information and was probably posted in 2009.
Why should I prove Chromium is free? Do you think it's a conspiracy that it isn't included in Trisquel? Do you not trust the developers either?
Like I said before, both Debian and Ubuntu find it free enough to include in their main repos but you disagree. You were making finalized claims about something without actually doing the research yourself and instead claiming it to be non-free without actually being 100% sure.
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 07:44:20PM +0100, name at domain wrote:
> Like I said before, both Debian and Ubuntu find it free enough to
> include in their main repos but you disagree. You were making
> finalized claims about something without actually doing the research
> yourself and instead claiming it to be non-free without actually
> being 100% sure.
So it's a conspiracy then...
FYI, I read first hand, from a very well known member of the trisquel community (who did test it themselves) that there are freedom issues with Chromium (but, as that was on IRC - and i have no idea on the timeframe or which channel, it wouldn't be easy to find the log for)...
Are you saying that one guy, the single owner of this distro with an agenda, who works on this in his free time and puts the bare minimum into this project, is more qualified to make that decision than the teams at the Debian and Ubuntu projects?
Has there been any actual work that the Trisquel team has done to figure out WHY Chromium is non-free instead of just blacklisting it entirely due to a claim in 2009? What freedom does that give to the users of Trisquel who have their dictator say what we can and cannot be allowed to install when their upstream projects say its ok?
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 07:52:14PM +0100, name at domain wrote:
> Are you saying that one guy, the single owner of this distro with an
> agenda, who works on this in his free time and puts the bare minimum
> into this project, is more qualified to make that decision than the
> teams at the Debian and Ubuntu projects?
Actually, it wasn't Ruben... you shouldn't jump to conclusions...
> Has there been any actual work that the Trisquel team has done to
> figure out WHY Chromium is non-free instead of just blacklisting it
> entirely due to a claim in 2009? What freedom does that give to the
> users of Trisquel who have their dictator say what we can and cannot
> be allowed to install when their upstream projects say its ok?
"dictator" <- that's really rude, and I'd think without merit.
Not happy with Trisquel? Two options: Improve it, or go elsewhere.
You want me to improve Trisquel just like you do? All your hard work in the code and helping Ruben ship out Trisquel? Oh wait... you don't.
This distro is struggling financially and the situation hasn't improved in the 2+ years I have been here. Is it really that wise to tell people to leave the project?
You misread that. I was speaking to people who might use the dismissive behavior as an example of a fault in the free software movement in general, not to people who speak in that sort of dismissive way. You're a particular candidate for this because you've been on the receiving end of this type of dismissive response, and you're one of the ones making generalized statements about the free software movement in this thread.
There's not a huge difference between the usefulness and success of projects that describe themselves as "free software" and projects that describe themselves as "open source". "Open source" is more popular, so that's why there are more success stories where the developers use the term "open source". GNU describes itself exclusively as "free software", and LibreOffice also uses the "free software" label.
It's unfair to claim that free software activists "attack" non-free software developers. Of course free software activists oppose development of non-free software, but "attack" doesn't describe criticism and rejection. Use of the word "attack" would be appropriate if, for example, there were free software activists blowing up Microsoft computers. That isn't happening.
"Evangelist" is similarly an unfair way to describe free software activism. This seeks to equate the free software movement with religion. If anyone is religious, it's the open source advocates; the whole idea of "open source" has been thoroughly disproven.[1] The free software movement isn't a religion; it's a political and social movement. If you're going to call the free software movement "evangelist", you should also use the same term to describe the feminist movement, the anarchist movements, the American civil rights movement of the 1960s, and any other movement you can think of. This term is simply a way for you to invite people to dismiss what the free software movement says without even considering it.
As for the Trisquel project, well, you need to separate the Trisquel community from the Trisquel development team. You can't make a statement about the developers of Trisquel based on what a few community members say and do. We're not all developers of Trisquel. Most of us aren't. At that, this is a free software community. You should expect most members here to be opposed to non-free software.
[1] http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/when-free-software-isnt-better-talk
How was RMS funded when he was developing GNU?
He sold copies of GNU and non-GNU programs (no internet back then), customizations to them and free documentation. And the FSF is a tax exempt charity.
Yeah, and don't forget the $500,000 remuneration for the chairperson. Someone's got to pay that.
I've tried Chromium before, and I honestly don't get what the big deal is. Far as I could discern, it isn't any faster or more lightweight than Firefox these days.
As long as we can make sure that ABrowser does not:
- Spy on its users
- Track any information
- Become unfree software in any way
I don't have any problems with ABrowser including advertisement.
Mozilla is a company and has to get its money from somewhere. That's how it is and how it will be until we manage to overcome capitalism.
.
There won't be any tracking.
https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2014/02/13/content-ads-caution/
I agree with your states except that I hate ads and marketing just because most of them are not advertizement but propaganda and because I think it's not a capitalism issue but a monetary system order based.
Abrowser 27 is ready and the ad system has been removed.
Mozilla already pushed the ad system in Firefox 27? That sure was quick and I figured it would be in the next release.
Oh and to the guy saying Chromium is non-free. If it was non-free, then why is it in the main repo of Debian and universe for Ubuntu? What makes you the authority on what is free or not and trying to say that the Debian team is wrong? They have a lot more knowledge and authority than you to make that distinction.
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 01:16:44AM +0100, name at domain wrote:
> Oh and to the guy saying Chromium is non-free. If it was non-free,
> then why is it in the main repo of Debian and universe for Ubuntu?
Ask Trisquel and/or GNU what the non-free issues are... they're the ones saying it's non-free...
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti