The reality is that Firefox shouldn't be trying to go anywhere. It's a fucking web browser. If I want more bullshit in my browser, I'll open another site. If I want to integrate that site into my browser, I'll go looking for a browser extension. I don't want it done for me. If I did, I'd have opened some site-specific app. I just want the goddamn browser.

Also, the other reality is that Firefox is supposed to be a platform which is highly themeable, so actually changing the GUI shouldn't even be necessary. If it was necessary, then Firefox is nothing it was supposed to be. If it wasn't necessary, then they are big fuckups for forcing the change instead of just making a different theme available to users who wanted to try it. So is Firefox a big piece of shit, or are the devs big fucking idiots? There's no third way.

Uh, no. You get this wrong above in your comment, too. If Google goes off the rails, then there will be a fork of Chromium.

So does Google, with Chrome -> Chromium.

The problem with Firefox ain't the licensing, it's that they're trying to cram five pounds of shit into a five pound sack which already contains a web browser. That only leaves room for shit, and best case your browser will end up shitty.

So can you name one more thing that Firefox has done in years that users want, let alone don't hate? Normal bug fix operation doesn't count. The people running Firefox are driving it straight off a cliff. Don't make apologies for them. They have their heads up their arses and aren't interesting in hearing about the fact.

And yet, when you look at the stalwarts of today's tech industry, all of them excelled in part because of their technical skills, which formed their ideas. Sometimes they lacked the technical ability to carry their ideas to completion without assistance, but that's a mark of every great human endeavor.

Bill Gates was a programmer, albeit a mediocre one. Steve Jobs was also a bad programmer, and a worse EE... but he could at least build circuits and write code. These people excelled because of their ideas, but their ideas were founded in reality because they did have skills, even if they weren't exceptional in those areas.

What makes it too-common? I don't see it that often.

Look, we have this concept of an individual who is "well-rounded" not by accident, but because we have seen that people who know more about more stuff have more intelligent things to say. As it turns out, things you learn in one area often have broad applicability. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If you also have a screwdriver, the world looks like a different place. When you have a whole garage full of tools, it looks different again.

Heinlein had it right when he said that specialization was for insects. Life is too short for anyone to become a master of all trades, but life is too wondrous to restrict one's learning to a single discipline. Live a little. Learn. Experience.

The value in teaching everyone beginning programming is a lot like the value in teaching everyone a foreign language, or a musical instrument. Not everyone is going to become a master. Many will not even develop competence. But at minimum, they will become more aware of how the world works, and be able to make better-informed decisions. They will actually learn to see things differently and approach things in different ways. They will have a different idea of what is possible than people who don't know what they know.

TL;DR: It's a waste to try to make everyone into a programmer, but it's not a waste to teach everyone about programming.

Not too long ago there was something going around from a cop saying he thought 15% were good cops, 15% were bad cops, and the rest were just followers who would go along with whatever was happening around them. Cop jobs will tend to attract bullies more than other jobs, so the percentages might be skewed, but I think we'd find that maybe only 1% of the population is psychopathic, but at least 5-10% is also sociopathic.

And yet you replied anonymously, like the abject coward you are, because you knew what you were saying was stupid.

They didn't have democracy. They had oligarchy. That's precisely what we have here in the USA now. I presume it's also what they have in greece, since it's what they've always had.

How does the daemon do it?

Wait, you mean OSX doesn't have simple filesystem-based access to that, like /sys and /proc on real systems?

Actually it takes a double tap, quick and fairly well-targeted.

See the May 12, 2015 Mozilla Foundation article, Update on Digital Rights Management and Firefox Quoting: "... the Adobe Content Decryption Module (CDM) to play back DRM-wrapped content ... will be downloaded from Adobe shortly after you upgrade or install Firefox."

Adobe has a long history of being invasive and abusive and releasing buggy software, in my opinion. Basically, installing new versions of Firefox now appears to give Adobe complete control, even though it is "sandboxed". Mozilla Foundation apparently does not disclose if it was paid by Adobe.

A huge problem, apparently, is that technically knowledgeable users will complain intensely. So, Mozilla Launches A New Firefox Version Without DRM Support. (See the U.S. English version 39.0, for example.)

Apparently the idea is that the technically knowledgeable users will get what they want, but most users will be sneakily manipulated, and the technically knowledgeable users will accept that.

See also this May 12, 2015 article: That DRM support in Firefox you never asked for? It's here. Quoting: " The first version of Adobe's CDM for Firefox is only available on Windows Vista and later and then only for 32-bit versions of the browser. Windows XP, OS X, Linux, and 64-bit versions of Firefox are not yet supported, and there's no word yet on when they might be."

Weird.

Is Microsoft intentionally destroying Firefox? Microsoft pays to have Bing search be the default search engine in newer versions of Firefox. That viciously destructive dishonesty is causing people who don't know how to re-configure Firefox to abandon Firefox. Version changes should NOT cause configuration changes.

Most people don't have the technical knowledge to know how they've been manipulated, or how to restore the default search engine to Google search.

In the past, Google paid Mozilla Foundation $300 million each year to make Google search the default search engine in Firefox. Google apparently didn't cause problems, even though it paid a shocking amount.

Now, I understand, Mozilla Foundation gets most of its money from Microsoft. Microsoft pays Yahoo. Yahoo pays Mozilla Foundation to make "Yahoo search" (actually mostly Microsoft Bing search) the default search engine in Firefox.

The Thunderbird and SeaMonkey Composer GUIs have been damaged, apparently deliberately. File saves in the newer versions of both ask for a new file name, and don't suggest the last one chosen. The damage was reported several months ago, but has not been fixed.

Is that another example of Microsoft's Embrace, Extend, Extinguish? People who feel forced away from Thunderbird may choose Microsoft software to replace it. Is that something Microsoft is trying to accomplish?

In my opinion, dishonest people should not be employed in management. In my opinion, the managers and members of the board of directors of both Microsoft and Mozilla Foundation who approved the dishonesty of sneakily re-configuring Firefox should be immediately fired, and not allowed to have management positions in the future.

Mozilla Foundation may be desperate now that it has lost the incredible amount of money paid by Google.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that much reduction be fairly pointless? Wouldn't you basically have to make it out of unobtainium (the high-torque parts, anyway... most of it, that is) in order to do useful work with it?

That's the one

Yeah, that's what happens when you don't trademark something. That was the original idea. It makes the name "organic" make more sense, several senses in fact:

Actually having a cyclical system is more "organic" by senses of the word which don't mean "on the USDA approved list" or "has a scary name"