Wild that people are concerned when Bazzite has a completely different underlying toolset vs SteamOS.

Want arch? SteamOS Want fedora? Bazzite

Tbh Bazzite has an important role going forward: pointing out any bad decisions by valve and offering an off-ramp if valve enshittifies.

Speaking as an engineer doing a lot of web dev, I think people underestimate how much work Mozilla does in standards and low-level shared API's via w3c and others, and how important it is that google isn't the only one in there making decisions. Most w3c standards decisions are made with google, Mozilla, Microsoft, and apple representatives in committees, and as we know, two of those are much more aligned in their own best interests these days, while one kinda wishes mobile web browsing didn't exist.

Would we have a better browser with less Mozilla baggage? Possibly.

Would the web standards that make everything work be better off without Mozilla? No, absolutely not.

Safari's team does what they can within Apple's bullshit intentional deprioritization of anything that could compete with the App Store, Edge's team has brought some sanity to the chromium side and toned back some of Google's wilder standards proposals and intentions. The fact that there are now 0 legitimate reasons for a website to "only work in chrome" (aside from some mobile safari things still) nowadays is all the stuff behind the scenes that matters. Even google is doing less FAFO shipping features and not caring about what other browsers need.

That said, maybe a disruptions is needed to a new paradigm could step in. Maybe a Mozilla Foundation placed under other ownership with a narrowed focus.

In the Linux space, the massive investments that GNOME, KDE, and others have been able to garner the last few years from governments and interested organizations is promising. There could be a similar interest in a web-focused org that could champion things without the Mozilla baggage and intent to avoid the same fate.

Forgejo is already working on federation https://forgefed.org/

Very unlikely. They will support new extension API's (they are already 90%+ compatible with manifest v3) bit Mozilla has committed to maintaining compatibility for the manifest v2 API's that don't exist in v3.

Claims otherwise are FUD.

Y'all realize a random employee performing the add-on store review process isn't representing Mozilla's or the Firefox teams entire position yeah? This kind of stuff happens all the time with all stores that have review processes.

Firefox Addons store prob needs to improve its process, gorhill is justified in being mad, and I understand if he needs a punching bag between this and google, but, as someone who also develops extensions.... These things happen. It's just a part of building browser extensions.

Best be careful when changing sheets anyway. It'd be a shame if your mattress wasn't properly killed before being shipped from Sqornshellous Zeta and it went on a flollop rampage after being exposed to too much sunlight.

Personal experience bias in mind: I feel like owners and managers are less interested in resolving tech debt now vs even 5 years ago.. Business owners want to grow sales and customer base, they don't want to hear about how the bad decisions made 3 years ago are making us slow, or how the short-term solution we compromised on last month means we can't just magically scale the product tomorrow. They also don't want to give us time to resolve those problems in order to move fast. It becomes a double-edged sword, and they try to use the "oh well when we hit this milestone we can hire more people to solve the tech debt"... But it doesn't really work that way.

Its also possible I'm more sensitive to the problem now that I'm in them lead/principal roles rather than senior roles. I put my foot down on tech debt a lot, but sometimes I can't. Its a vicious cycle and it'll only get worse the longer the tech sector is stuck in this investor-fueled forever-growth mindset.

Too much "move fast and break things" from non-technical people, not enough "let's build a solid foundation now to reap rewards later". Its a prioritization of short term profits. And that means we, the engineers, often get stuck holding the bag of problems to solve. And if you care about your work, it becomes a point of frustration even if you try to view the job as just a job.

Honestly, I'm not mad if AI fully defeats captchas to the point they go away. They almost always fail to be usable via accessibility tools. These things might block some automated systems, but they also block people with disabilities.

Manifest v3 extensions work in Firefox, too. Its just the new thing. Its way easier to build cross-browser extensions with, too. V3 is actually a good thing overall, as its led to a lot of extensions being available for Firefox when the devs might have just targeted chrome. Way more feature parity between browsers with v3.

Chrome dropping support for v2 doesn't merit a response from Firefox because nothing changes for Firefox users and they're not going to drop support. Any one who actually cares (and they should) will move to Firefox on their own, so why waste advertising money on that? Eventually Firefox and any other browsers who want to allow stuff like ublock will probably have a way to do the same tasks in v3 (and the Firefox Dev team has said as much in blog posts for ages), then it'll just be a feature that doesn't work in chrome. V3 just simply doesn't have the API that ublock uses in v2.

There have been discussions for years in the w3c standards group about this whole shitshow and this is one the chrome team have basically refused to budge on despite all the other browser teams. Its honestlu a mirscle they delayed it as long as they have. This was originally supposed to happen at the start of 2023.

Chrome is kinda like a country with a overrule veto vote at the UN when it comes to w3c working groups since they can just do whatever they want anyway, and nothing will change until they no longer have that power. That said, browser feature parity is at an all time high recently and its because all the browser teams are working together better than ever. There are just these hard limits chrome chooses to stick to.

Roku was such an easy recommendation for a long time... Non-complex UI, long support for updates, not owned by google or amazon... Far cheaper than LG and Samsung... (Not that Samsung's UI is anywhere near as easy as roku)

But now I guess thats done. Unless an alternate firmware exists or this doesn't hit older TVs I guess I'll be looking for a new TV... Which is a shame because my current 4 year old roku TV is more than capable.

Tooltips are a standard accessibility feature. Just because you may not find them helpful doesn't mean others do not benefit. The delay is to ensure they don't get in the way unintentionally (but still allow usage) for those who do not need the accessibility benefit at all times.

That's how Microsoft markets their "safe links" in Outlook, which is more or less the same behavior of wrapping all links with a redirect. Whether they actually do anything with that to save you from phishing attempts or whatever... who knows. Even if there is a safety feature, it's still an easy way to mine url query params for data or learn about the user for other purposes (which they may or may not be doing)

IMO if you can't turn it off, there's a secondary motive to the feature. Especially when the feature is marketed from a place of fear rather than aid.